Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Nursery Education

Dr. George Turner: What progress he has made in increasing the number of nursery places since May 1997. [143457]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The Government have created 120,000 new, free nursery places as part of the commitment fulfilled in 1998 to provide a free nursery place for all four-year-olds. We are on track to provide a free nursery place for all three and four-year-olds by 2004.

Dr. Turner: I congratulate my right hon. Friend not only on being the first Secretary of State to recognise the key role of early-years education as the foundation for educational success, but on delivering investment in it. Having been on Norfolk education committee and served as its chairman, I know that the Conservatives singularly failed to do that, either in government or in local government. Does he acknowledge that delivering and extending nursery provision to all three-year-olds by 2004 will be challenging, particularly in rural counties, and that there may be a need for capital investment as well as revenue investment? How will he rise to that challenge?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that that will be challenging, but it would be especially challenging were the Opposition to win the general election, because they are not committed to spending the money on expanding nursery education. Their so-called promise on spending applies only to statutory schooling, not to education as a whole, and would wipe out the doubling of the nursery education budget to £2 billion. He will be pleased to know that £2.25 million of that will go next year to Norfolk county council as part of the early years and child care partnership funding, so that it and its partners in the voluntary and private sectors can deliver.
That is where the challenge lies—getting the partnership to work between the private and voluntary sectors and the local authority to ensure that, in rural as well as in urban areas, we can deliver on the ground what

parents require and give children what they need to have the firm foundation for standards and opportunity for the future which the Opposition would deny them.

Mr. Roy Beggs: The Government are to be commended on the number of nursery places that have been created. I welcome that, having been a member of the North Eastern Education and Library Board and involved in the provision of nursery schools in Northern Ireland. I also welcome the recognition that children in rural areas must have opportunity to benefit equally. However, what steps are being taken to ensure that there are adequate teachers trained to deal with children in nursery schools and that the right balance is struck between education and play?

Mr. Phil Willis: Good question.

Mr. Blunkett: It is an excellent question, which links with a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on which I did not have the opportunity to reflect. We need capital investment in providing the infrastructure—the facility—and we need to ensure that we plan the teacher training. In 1997, I said that the biggest challenge to delivering nursery education for all three and four-year-olds was not the commitment to money, which we are making, but the practicalities of getting the trainees in, ensuring that they have the competence to do the job and then building in the back-up and support staff. Therefore, we will have not only well trained nursery teachers, but well trained nursery nurses and child care assistants to provide what the Under-Secretary of State responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), calls wraparound care. That will enable us to link nursery education with child care—[Interruption.] I think that a message is coming through from Conservative central office with an answer to the next question. Like everything else from the Opposition, it will consist of more noise than substance.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that the Education Sub-Committee launched the early-years report this morning. Although I agree that good work on early-years education has been started over the past three and a half years, with a massive investment, does he agree that there must be quality as well as quantity and that the challenge in the coming years will be to ensure that early-years education is an area of high training, high skills and qualifications and good pay? The people who look after our children at a most vulnerable, delicate and challenging age must be of the best quality and have the greatest motivation.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree that quality is essential and that is assured in respect of trained nursery teachers. As for back-up and support staff, we have given the new Learning and Skills Council a target of 230,000 places to ensure that such workers reach at least level 2 and that there will be a level 3 worker in the child care support staff field in each setting, as well as someone available for work with special needs children—the special needs co-ordinators, or sencos, as they are known.
I found the Select Committee's observations extremely interesting. I am pleased that the Committee agreed with the consultation that was carried out in the autumn on


Government pronouncements on ensuring that learning outcomes reflect the fact that children at that age learn through play and that education and play are integrated in a common-sense fashion.

Mr. John Hayes: Is it not true that the system is in crisis in terms of diversity in early-years education? According to the Government's own figures, there are 30,000 less pre-school and playgroup places for children than there were in 1997. In the sector as a whole—registered child minders, pre-schools and playgroups—there are more than 30,000 less providers. Most shocking of all, nursery school class sizes are larger than they were under the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State confirm that nursery school class sizes are larger now than in 1997?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: By the way, it is fewer, not less.

Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who did Latin at school and as a consequence understands English, which is why we will make it more readily available through the internet.
No, I will not confirm the point raised by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) about nursery class sizes. I will not confirm that there are fewer places. There are more places in both formal and informal care. We have made it clear before that there were fewer child minders. We have never hidden the fact that we need to work with them to develop diversity and flexibility of care. There are more places in full-time and part-time nursery education. There are 170,000 more places for child care, which represents the creation of more places in 18 months than the Tories created in 18 years. We will ensure that quality and responsiveness are built into those programmes.

After-school Clubs

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What action he is taking to improve the regulation and funding of after-school clubs. [143459]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The new opportunities fund is providing £170 million to help to set up out-of-school care for 865,000 children in the UK by 2003. From April, a new and additional £155 million will be available from the fund, part of which will be for out-of-school clubs. Day care regulation will transfer from local authorities to Ofsted in September 2001, which, with new national standards, will ensure improved consistency in the regulation and quality of day care for out-of-school clubs and other providers.

Mr. Thomas: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer, particularly the news about the new funding. Is she aware that after-school clubs are currently seen in law as child care provision and that the schools in which they are based cannot legally be seen to run them? Does she recognise that that is causing much unnecessary additional work for the schools in which such clubs are based, particularly the excellent Vaughan first and middle school

in my constituency, which has made representations to me? What action will my hon. Friend take to remedy that problem?

Ms Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend for that question and congratulate his authority on the great progress that it has made in meeting our national targets on child care. I am aware of the problem of schools having to set up separate bodies to run out-of-school clubs. We hope that by taking through Parliament by early next year the Bill dealing with deregulation, we can change that so that schools will have the permission—not the duty—to set up out-of-school clubs, if they so wish.

Teacher Numbers

Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on recruitment into teacher training. [143460]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): In autumn, I acknowledged in the House that there was a problem and that we were taking decisive action to deal with it. The decisive action that had already been taken from March and before March last year has led to a 9 per cent. increase in the number of people in teacher training—there are 2,250 more men and women in teacher training courses. The measures that we have taken over the past few weeks have led to a dramatic improvement in the number of people seeking information or registering—[Interruption.] I do not think that that is at all funny, nor do parents or teachers. Our measures have led to a massive increase in those registering an interest, not just telephoning for information.
To get the facts straight, since the advertising campaign began on 27 December, 14,000 people have rung the teacher helpline. In one day alone—2 January, immediately after the holiday—nearly 2,000 people made contact, which is the largest number ever. The number of registrations, as opposed to mere inquiries, for further details about application has gone up from 17,000 last year to 34,000 this year. The number of people making general inquiries has risen by 100 per cent. to 73,000. There is a problem, but not a crisis. However, it is made worse by those who pretend that it is a crisis.

Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful for that full answer. However, the figures that the Secretary of State has given are wrong. Applications this year are 16 per cent. down on last year's figures. He will recall that his Government were elected on an early pledge to reduce class sizes. The Government will meet that pledge only if they recruit more teachers. The Government are presiding over an unprecedented crisis in the teaching profession. Why, in his view, do more people not want to go into teaching under this Government?

Mr. Blunkett: First, we have a good opportunity to get a few facts on the table. There are 7,500 more teachers than there were three years ago. If the Conservative Budget for 1997–98 had been continued, there would be 10,000 fewer teachers in schools in England, not 7,500 more. Of course, if that were the case, there would not be


a problem in recruiting because there would be a surplus of people trying to get jobs in a climate of diminished investment.
Secondly, there is not a problem with meeting the class size pledge. We agreed that the pledge was for 2002, but we then pulled that back to 2000–01, and it will be fulfilled this September by our £600 million investment and the recruitment of infants teachers that is taking place. It will be fulfilled because we changed the law in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, although people may not remember that—the media are certainly not aware of it. From this September, carrying through that class size pledge will be obligatory.

Mr. Derek Twigg: If there is such a crisis, why has Halton seen the best improvement in literacy and numeracy results in primary schools in recent years? Is it not the case that, in the past year, the highest number of teachers has been employed? That is what this is about. We should not listen to Opposition scaremongering.

Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, there are variations across the country. There is no doubt that there is a problem with recruitment especially, but not exclusively, in London and the south-east. That is partly because we have the most buoyant economy, the most buoyant labour market and the highest level of prosperity in 20 years. That is why there are genuine challenges in recruitment in every area. I should be interested to know how many vacancies there are at Conservative party central office: quite a lot at the moment, I should have thought.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): It is pretty vacant all round.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree. I would even be interested to know how many vacancies there are in the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers which, far from helping to resolve the problem, is deliberately trying to make it worse.

Mr. Phil Willis: Deflecting attention to teacher unions, is does the Secretary of State little credit. Golden hellos and golden handcuffs might make quick headlines and nice gimmicks, but pay is a major factor. I am sure that he agrees. If the School Teachers Review Body reports that a 3.5 per cent. increase is widely acceptable, it will mean a £155 net increase for every graduate entering teaching this year. That is the equivalent of 45p per day, or a cup of coffee, which gives a new meaning to Gold Blend. Does he agree that salaries are a major issue? When will he provide a real increase in salaries to make them competitive with those in British industry?

Mr. Blunkett: Of course salaries are important. However, the idea that the Government should take up the Liberal Democrats' suggestion and pay every trainee the starting salary of a teacher on level I would cost £296 million for graduates alone. If we took up the suggestion for all teacher trainees, it would cost just under £700 million.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He's got rid of that Liberal penny again.

Mr. Blunkett: The penny seems to have dropped several times. I hope that it might do so now with the realisation that one can do only so much with a given pound. So that the numeracy lesson gets through, I should point out that there are only 100 pence in a pound.

Mr. Willis: Answer the question.

Mr. Blunkett: The answer is that of course pay matters.

Mr. Willis: What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Blunkett: The heckler asks what I am doing. I am ensuring that between 160,000 and 200,000 teachers will receive a £2,000 uplift during the next few months. That will happen as long as the Liberal Democrat motion to stop it is not agreed to next Wednesday. The Government are committed—I commit us this morning—to accepting the School Teachers Review Body report this year. The combination of performance-related promotion and the likely pay increase will amount to an overall increase of between 10 and 15 per cent. I do not know what Opposition parties would do with the money—the Conservatives are cutting and the Liberal Democrats are committing—but I know what we are doing: ensuring that teachers are well paid and well supported and do a good job.

Mr. Bill Rammell: If the Liberals are so committed to extra pay for teachers, why did their alternative Budget contain no costed commitment in that respect? Does my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement about that? The general problems of teacher recruitment are of long standing and need a long-term solution. Will he join me in condemning the Essex Conservative party, which has claimed that Essex schools are on the verge of a four-day week, when no school in Essex is operating on that basis? The director of education in Essex has explicitly said that that is not happening. Are not the Opposition trying to play politics with our children's future?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, let me say that I would not want him to condemn the Essex Conservatives.

Mr. Blunkett: I take your advice, Mr. Speaker; my hon. Friend has condemned them adequately. Not only have there been no four-day weeks in Essex, but no schools are working on a four-day week anywhere in England. It is time to applaud head teachers and teachers who face enormous strain on staffing and recruitment and are doing a first-class job. No one should exacerbate that problem; everybody should join in ensuring that our children get a decent education with staff who are well supported in doing a damn good job.

Mrs. Theresa May: If the number of applicants for graduate teacher training was 14,224 at the beginning of January 2000 and 11,935 at the beginning of January this year, was that a rise or a fall?

Mr. Blunkett: The difficulty is the question of applications. I have referred to inquiries and registration


and I shall now deal with applications. The Graduate Teacher Training Registry used figures relating to the beginning of December which were different from the equivalent figures at the same date the previous year. [Laughter.] Conservative Members can check the figures for 8, 15 and 22 December and this week's figures, because they are all on the internet and are available for everyone to see.
Some applications, including those resulting from the recent advertising campaign, have not yet come through—that is self-evident. The simple fact is that applications have been submitted later year on year. This time last year, the number of applications was less than the year before, but the take up of places was 2,250 higher. Rather than stirring things up, a little reality from the hon. Lady would not come amiss. She must answer one question: how would she pay for the £6,000 trainee teacher salaries, the graduate teacher recruitment programme and the golden hellos?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but it is not his concern to worry about how the hon. Lady would pay for those things.

Mr. Blunkett: You are entirely right, Mr. Speaker. It is the electorate's job to worry about that, because the £180 million that we are spending is not included in the Tories' promise of spending on education.

Mrs. May: It is the Secretary of State who needs to look at reality—and to attend a numeracy class. We now know that a fall is not a fall when it is a different figure. The Secretary of State's answers to all the questions about teacher recruitment show how complacent and out of touch the Government are with what is happening in our schools. It is no good saying that people are showing an interest in becoming a teacher some time in the future. Schools and children's education are suffering today. Children are being taught by unqualified teachers and by non-specialist teachers. In one school, children are being taught in a class of 90. Children are being sent home early, some schools have been on a four-day week and some are threatened with a four-day week. When the Prime Minister said "Education, education, education", no one knew that he meant the number of days a week that children would attend school. Schools face a crisis today; parents face a crisis today; children's education is suffering today. People have paid their taxes, now where are the teachers?

Mr. Blunkett: They are doing the job in the classroom and there are 17,500 more of them than there would have been had the Tories been in office. I liked the reference to "Education, education, education." That is three, is it not, and which Government had a three-day week? The Tory Government of 1973–74. Do not talk to me about three-day weeks—the Tory party knows all about three-day weeks.

Playing for Success Scheme

Dr. Doug Naysmith: If he will make a statement on the playing for success scheme. [143461]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The playing for success scheme is proving to be very successful. Thirty-three top football clubs have already opened study support centres, helping more than 20,000 pupils to improve their literacy, numeracy and ICT skills and increasing their motivation to learn. Evaluation of the first six centres found that primary and secondary pupils' numeracy improved by four and two months and their reading by six and eight months. More centres involving both football and other sports will open in 2001–02.

Dr. Naysmith: Obviously, my hon. Friend agrees with me that the scheme is a success. Is she aware that it is almost as important that the scheme enthuses girls as well as boys?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In our evaluation, we were especially keen to ensure that the magic of football motivated girls in the same way as it does boys. I assure my hon. Friend that it does: the evaluation showed that girls as well as boys were making progress. The scheme is proving a success for both girls and boys, and we are proud of it.

Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister now tell us exactly which businesses are involved in the scheme—and, while she is about it, will she have the good grace to concede that both the fact of the scheme and its proposed extension are testimony to the failure of the Government's own fresh start initiative? Only one of the schools involved in the new scheme can report a significant increase over the past two years in the number of members of the relevant age cohort scoring five good GCSEs.

Jacqui Smith: Judging by the last part of his question, I think the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what the playing for success scheme is about. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, in addition to the £6 million that the Government are investing in the scheme each year, clubs and businesses contribute £2 million.

Mr. Bercow: Name them.

Jacqui Smith: I am sorry that I cannot name the numerous businesses and 32 clubs in many cities that are contributing to the scheme's success. What I know is that 20,000 pupils are succeeding and that numerous businesses are contributing to the £2 million of sponsorship. The scheme is improving pupils' learning skills, helping them to read better and raising their mathematical standards. We commend that. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman carps at the success of our children, our football clubs and the Government's initiative.

Schools Funding

Mr. David Amess: If he will make a statement on the funding of schools. [143462]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): For 2001–02, we have increased the total revenue funding available to local authorities by £1.5 billion. Moreover, the direct grant that is payable to schools has increased from £290 million to £540 million.

Mr. Amess: Will the Minister confirm that the money announced to deal with staff shortages will not help a single school in Southend, because our schools do not meet either the criterion requiring a maximum of 25 per cent. of A to C passes, or the criterion relating to free school meals? Will she also confirm that the new money for information technology that was announced yesterday had already been announced on 30 October last year, and that in any case £2.9 million of it will have to be raised by the council tax payers of Essex?

Ms Morris: I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to want to let schools in his constituency know that there is extra money for staff recruitment and retention, if that is how they choose to spend it. He will be aware that all schools—primary and secondary—have received a direct grant. If schools in Southend or in Essex generally want to use it for retention purposes, or to recruit extra staff to teach shortage subjects, they can do so.
The hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that last Friday we announced the provision of £32 million for schools in challenging circumstances, particularly those serving deprived communities, in addition to the special direct grant received by every school—nursery, primary or secondary—accompanied by a guarantee that it will be paid over the next two years and increased by 2.75 per cent. I wonder whether he can confirm that that increased amount would continue to be paid to schools in his constituency if Labour were not in power.

Charlotte Atkins: Over the last few years I have opened a huge number of computer suites, science laboratories and school extensions because of the Government's massive investment in education in Staffordshire. However, Staffordshire's local education authority still suffers because of its unfair standard spending assessment formula. May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to make direct payments to schools, thus providing a short-term solution? Will she also go on trying to find a long-term solution to the problem of the tremendously unfair funding delivered to schools by the SSA formula?

Ms Morris: That is a fair and balanced question. My hon. Friend is right on both counts. I have never sought to defend the SSA formula, which seems to allocate resources haphazardly to different local authorities. As she and the House will know, we inherited the formula from the previous Government, who made no attempt to change it. I give the assurance that we have given before. We are looking at that matter. It is part of the consultation. We have given a commitment to have transparency of funding and funding that is fairer than in at the moment.
Even with the SSA formula, Staffordshire schools and Staffordshire children are far better funded than ever before. That has been matched by the increase in capital money and in direct grant. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that one of the advantages of the direct grants that are payable to schools is that they do not reflect the SSA formula. Children in Staffordshire and in other local authorities that feel poorly treated by the SSA formula will have welcomed the fact that, through

that special grant, they are treated the same: those children's needs are treated the same as those of every other child.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister accept that, after three and a half years of Labour Government, with schools now facing a crisis in teacher recruitment and needing every penny of resources that they can get, it is not acceptable for an unholy alliance of LEAs and her Department to continue to hold back £540 per pupil per year, mainly occupied in administration and in servicing not so much education as bureaucracy—money which our free schools policy would return to schools to do their job?

Ms Morris: If that is Conservative party policy for meeting the challenges that schools face, it lacks any direction, substance or hope. The hon. Gentleman has a cheek. At least under the present Government, we know how much money is delegated from local authorities to schools because we publish the figures, which the previous Government never did.
When we look at the figures, far from seeing that local authorities are holding more money back, more money is being delegated direct to schools than ever before. That is one of the differences between the Tories and the Government. It is right that local authorities are the ones that organise school transport and that do the administration on admissions. It is right that some of that money is held back for some children with special education needs. I have never ever yet met one head teacher who wants to use his or her time organising a bus or taxi system for children with special education needs.
That is the money that the Tories want to delegate to schools. What is interesting is that there would not be a penny more from central Government. Their policy is to take the money from local authorities that is already being spent on raising standards and on helping many disadvantaged groups and to give that to schools. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have delegated more and head teachers know it.

New Deal

Mr. Ivan Henderson: If he will make a statement on the progress of new deal for people aged over 25 years. [143463]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): As part of the new deal for those aged 25 plus, 76,000 men and women over that age have been placed in the past two years, with a further 22,000 in the 50-plus new deal programme in the eight months of its national operation. They are part of the 1.1 million men and women who have got a job during the duration of the Government's policies.

Mr. Henderson: Was the Secretary of State aware that, prior to 1997, the Harwich constituency was classed as the unemployment black spot of Essex? The new deal has been a huge success for my constituency. Will he join me in congratulating Glynn Ridley on being the 1,000th successful candidate under the 25-plus new deal programme to achieve a full-time skilled job; and Reed, the new deal providers, on presenting Glynn Ridley with a £1,000 cheque to help him with his travel-to-work


expenses? Is that not the clear difference between this Government, who are offering opportunity to the unemployed in my constituency, and the Conservative party, which offers no opportunity, no new deal, no new hope and no future for those who are unemployed there?

Mr. Blunkett: Congratulations to Glynn Ridley, to Reed and to all those, including his new employer, who have set him on as an engineer. I think that the idea of the 1,000th 25-plus new dealer in the area receiving £1,000 was excellent. I hope that other providers will consider similar proposals. This is, of course, part of a drop of 75 per cent. in the number of people in my hon. Friend's constituency who have experienced unemployment for more than two years. That figure is repeated across the country, and it is something of which we should all be very proud.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the new deal's most important innovations has been the introduction of personal advisers? They have been extremely successful in reconnecting people to the labour market. However, the experience of the new deal suggests that people who need a little help have had more success than those who need a lot of help.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, especially in rural areas such as mine, personal advisers for people over 25 will have real flexibility in practice to use their initiative to serve their clients and get the best out of the new deal for them?

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. It is important to tailor programmes to the needs of the individual and to learn from the experience gained in the new deal programmes for people aged 18 to 24, and in the 25-plus pilots. That is why the 25-plus new deal will be strengthened from 1 April. The adviser service will be made more responsive, and time will be given to those who need it most—especially to those who have experienced very long-term unemployment.
I also hope that we will learn a great deal from the first nine months of the employment zones in England, which have been working extremely well.

Mr. Alan Simpson: My right hon. Friend and I have had several conversations about the pistachio problem associated with the new deal. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that pistachios are terribly moreish, but that the unopened ones always get thrown back into the bowl. In the context of new deal, the people who get thrown back are invariably the ones with drugs and alcohol problems, literacy and numeracy problems, or who have family or behavioural difficulties.
My right hon. Friend has pioneered many initiatives in relation to new deal, but will he look at the work first initiative in the United States? Under that initiative, young adults who are the hardest to place are given the prospect of three years with an employer. They get a wage from day one, and all the support services are built into the programme. Would not such an approach mean that problem pistachios were no longer thrown back into the bowl?

Mr. Blunkett: Yes. About 11 per cent. of 25-plus new dealers return for a second time. One of the interesting

outcomes of the training and work experience that they receive—which they would not have received previously—is that they are more readily easily placed in employment the second time around than would otherwise be the case.
However, the major challenge is to link such people with an employer who is prepared to give them time and continuity and to see them through often major personal crises. In developing the programmes, it is very important to learn how they work in employment-zone areas. That will ensure that we can give people the support, rehabilitation and prolonged work experience that they need. That is the best way to keep them in jobs.

Mr. Graham Brady: The Secretary of State knows that the new deal has done nothing to prevent unemployment from rising in the past month in every region of the country outside London, the south-east and the south-west. With 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the past 12 months alone, the right hon. Gentleman also knows that the north and the midlands are the arms that are suffering most at the moment under this Labour Government. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what action is proposed by the Cabinet Committee that met for the first time on 18 September to examine the problem of job losses in manufacturing?

Mr. Blunkett: Under the Conservatives, manufacturing lost more than 10 times the number of jobs it did under this Government. However, manufacturing now has many guises. New techniques are being developed through numerical control and information technology, and they make a difference to the ratio between output, and therefore productivity, and the number of people employed.
There are now 1.1 million more people in work than there were four years ago.[Interruption.] I am being heckled again. That rise in employment has something to do with the health of the economy overall, to which the new deal is a contributor. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research concluded that the new deal for people aged between 18 and 25 had contributed to a rise in gross domestic product of £0 5 billion. An increase in GDP helps us to sustain growth, growth creates jobs, and jobs enable us to place people in employment at every level in manufacturing, the service sector or wherever. That is why the economy and the new deal have been major Government successes in helping to turn unemployment into prospects and hope, enabling people to earn their own living and have job prospects for the future.

School Performance

Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on added-value measures of school performance. [143464]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): The Government are committed to supplementing the information already published in school performance tables with information about how far schools help their pupils to progress between the stages of their education. We intend to do this as soon as we have the necessary


information about individual pupil performance and have tested successfully the processes involved. The first value-added measures, for secondary schools, should appear in the performance tables in 2002.

Mr. Benn: The Government's commitment to publish these measures is greatly welcomed and eagerly anticipated by schools in my constituency serving the most disadvantaged areas because those schools believe passionately that they will provide a fair reflection of the progress they are making with pupils. Will my hon. Friend use every effort to ensure that, apart from the Department, those who publish performance information, including the newspapers, include the new value-added measures as soon as they are available?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has made an important point and I know that there will be many schools in my his constituency and more widely that are doing an excellent job in making a difference to children's lives. That is what the value-added information will enable us to measure. I regret that we have not been able to introduce value-added performance tables more quickly, but my hon. Friend probably needs to know, as does the House, that when we took office, no work had been done on developing the individual pupil information that is necessary to ensure that our value-added tables are based on individual pupil progress. We have undertaken to do that work and we will publish the information as soon as possible. I hope that the way in which the information is published, in newspapers and more widely, will help to recognise the difference that schools are making to our children's lives.

Teacher Numbers

Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on teacher recruitment and retention in outer London. [143466]

The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Overall, there were almost 500 more teachers in post in outer London in January 2000 than January 1998 and over 600 more than January 1997. There are problems for some schools in particular subjects.

Mr. Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the products of the successful economy in London, particularly over the past couple of years, has been a real increase in house prices? Head teachers in my constituency tell me that one of the biggest problems they have in filling teacher vacancies is the high cost of housing in London, which means that schools have to become increasingly dependent on agency staff, particularly from overseas. Will my right hon. Friend look at housing costs for teachers in London and see whether she can do something to help with this real and growing problem?

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. Schools in some areas are having particular difficulties and he is right to identify housing costs, particularly in London and the south-east, as one of the factors making things tough for some schools. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced the initiative for starter homes involving expenditure of £250 million to help

teachers in areas such as that to which my hon. Friend referred. It is the first time that any Government have provided that amount of resource to help key workers with high housing costs in areas such as London and the south-east. I hope that my hon. Friend can go back to his constituency and ensure that his local authority is making it clear that it is interested in that resource and working up plans to spend its allocation should it receive one.

Sir Sydney Chapman: In spite of the answer to the original question, will the Minister confirm that there is a serious and worsening shortage of teachers in the London borough of Barnet, particularly specialist teachers? That is instanced in one school where there are vacancies for four teachers, which is putting in peril a five-day education week for many of my constituents. Will the Minister confirm that that is also the case in other outer London boroughs? My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has told me that it is certainly the case in Hillingdon. Is the right hon. Lady addressing those serious problems?

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman also represents a constituency in an area of London where it is particularly tough to recruit teachers. That is why, as well as introducing the £250 million to support key workers with housing costs, we asked the teachers pay review body this year to look particularly at the use of recruitment and retention posts, and it will be responding shortly. Although such posts have been available in past years, they have not been well used by schools. An open message can go to schools to use the recruitment and retention posts available.
In response to the hon. Gentleman's query about teacher shortages, the facts are clear. Now that we have the training allowances, there are more teachers in post than there were last year and in 1997, including in London. More people are going into initial teacher training and that would not be so if the Tories were in power and took away the training salaries. That is what they did. Of all the measures that the Government have introduced which have effectively got more people into teaching and into teacher training, I suspect that the training salary has had the most effect. The hon. Gentleman should not run away from that fact.

Employment Rates

Mr. Michael Clapham: How many regions of the United Kingdom have employment rates as high as the EU average. [143467]

The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Ms Tessa Jowell): Latest data from the labour force survey show that all regions in the United Kingdom have employment rates higher than the European Union average of 64.2 per cent.

Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree with me, however, that all regions of the UK have areas of high and low unemployment? The areas that tend to have the highest level of unemployment are those in which the local economy is in transition. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that although the new deal has been very helpful in areas such as Barnsley and south Yorkshire in directing young


people into new jobs, it is essential that employers continue to provide a high level of training so that young people can have transferable skills, as that boosts the economy and helps British competitiveness? Does she further agree that the employment policies of the Conservative party would be an unmitigated disaster for Barnsley and south Yorkshire?

Ms Jowell: I think that my hon. Friend's constituents and everyone on this side of the House would strongly agree with his last point. The recessions of the early 1980s and 1990s hit the country as a whole and we saw 2.5 million manufacturing jobs go. Those recessions hit his constituents in Barnsley particularly hard. He is right to pay tribute to the positive contribution of the new deal for young people which the Opposition, were they to be elected, are pledged to scrap. The new deal for young people has seen long-term youth unemployment in my hon. Friend's area fall by 74 per cent. since the election. The other major boost for the local economy is an extra £1.7 billion through the objective 1 status which south Yorkshire now has.
My hon. Friend is also right that the partnership between employers, unions and workers focusing on the improvement of skills, particularly the skills required in the new economy—the new labour market—is key to raising productivity.
The best future for my hon. Friend's constituents is a continuation of the policies that have promoted economic stability under this Government, enabling us to see the prospect of long-term unemployment as a thing of the past. For his constituents, that future would be threatened by the return to boom and bust, the hallmark of the Opposition.

Mr. Ian Bruce: As the question related specifically to the European Union, will the Minister comment on whether this economic success is due to staying out of the euro? We were told that if we did not enter the euro, our unemployment rates would rocket while those in the European Union would fall.

Ms Jowell: There is no clear correlation between membership of the single currency and employment rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—if we take, for instance, Sweden—[Interruption.] Conservative Members conduct business by heckling, Mr. Speaker. In the UK, employment rates in every region are higher than in the EU as a whole. The EU average conceals large variations. The secret of the UK's success is a combination of minimum standards at work and labour market flexibility.
Let us not forget, however, that close to 2.7 million jobs rely on our trade with Europe—about 60 per cent. access to one of the largest markets, post-enlargement, in the world. We shall make judgments about entry to a single currency in the light of the five economic tests—one of which will be the impact on jobs—when the time comes.

Child Care Places

Mr. Peter Bradley: How many child care places have been provided in rural areas since May 1997. [143468]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Statistics are not split between urban and rural areas. However, some 295,000 new places for 540,000 children have been created in England since May 1997, which, taking turnover into account, still adds new places for 350,000 children. A number of initiatives will particularly benefit children in rural areas; for instance, our expansion of nursery education, our new neighbourhood nursery scheme and our start-up funding for child minders.

Mr. Bradley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and welcome the 1,300 new out-of-school and pre-school places provided last year and this year in Telford and the Wrekin. However, voice my concern at the lack of statistical breakdown between rural and urban communities. There are special difficulties in rural areas: a scarcity of registered child minders; additional difficulties of distance because of travel and transport, and their cost, between home, child minders—where they exist—and employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that those difficulties should not be allowed to undermine the success of the new deal and other Government initiatives? Can she give me some assurance that she will consider special measures to ensure that women, especially in rural communities, receive the same opportunities as women in urban communities?

Ms Hodge: I accept entirely my hon. Friend's comments about the specific problems facing rural communities. That is why we have done two things. We have introduced the start-up grant for child minders, who play an especially important role; by 2004, we hope to have places for 145,000 more children through child minders. Universal nursery education for three and four-year-olds will also have an impact on children in rural areas. However, I shall continue to explore new ways to ensure that we meet the needs of children and families in rural areas.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: As the Minister is a notable former Chairman of the Education Sub-Committee, will she take note of the recommendation in today's report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment that no child minder should be allowed to smack any child or no smoke in the presence of a child in their care? That recommendation received support from both sides of the House.
Instead of deciding the issue on the strength of a private opinion poll—as the hon. Lady, before Christmas, declared that she would do—will she allow the House to debate it and to make a decision on the strength of a free vote?

Ms Hodge: I welcome the full and important contribution made by the Select Committee to the debate on early years education and child care. We shall consider all the recommendations with great care.
On smacking and smoking, the issue is not whether a parent or child minder should be permitted to smack or smoke; it is whether the matter should be determined by the state or by parents in the privacy of their own home in negotiation with the child minder. Parents' rights take precedence over those of other people—including Members of Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman should think about how we would implement a law forbidding smacking and smoking in the privacy of the home. If he were to think about the implications of that in a court, he would realise that it would be wholly unenforceable and impracticable; it would be a denial of parents' rights. The right of parents to influence children is uppermost in our mind.

European Year of Languages

Mr. Denis MacShane: What steps he is taking to promote the European year of language in schools. [143469]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): The Government are doing a great deal to promote and support the European year of languages. We have appointed the Centre for Information on Language Teaching (CILT) to manage the UK's contribution to the year. It has produced a broad and inclusive programme of opportunities for people of all ages to participate in a wide range of events. Many of these are aimed specifically at schools. They are set out in a comprehensive publication entitled "Languages for Life—the UK programme", which is available from the centre.

Mr. MacShane: Merci beaucoup! for the answer, but is my hon. Friend aware that, according to the BBC,

as of next year, more than half of the exchanges on the net will not be in English; and that the conservative approach to working or travelling abroad—that one just keeps speaking English and if the foreigners do not understand, one starts shouting at them—is no recipe? We cannot have a monolingual Britain in a global economy. Will my hon. Friend, as Education Minister, pay particular attention to the need to start language teaching in primary schools, because we are far too old, and after the age of 13 or 14, people are too self-conscious? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] I am speaking for myself. I am far too old. We need to start in primary schools. That is the recipe to ensure that we have a Britain that can function in the rest of the world and speak more than the rabid English that is all the Tories are capable of.

Mr. Wicks: My hon. Friend will never be too old; he grows more enthusiastic with age. However, I certainly take the point, and that is why one in five of our primary schools, on a voluntary basis, are teaching languages. The internet and e-mail enable more and more of our schoolchildren and our schools to twin with other children and schools elsewhere in Europe to make all of this possible.
As part of the European year of languages, the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), is leading from the front by learning Spanish; so felicidades to her.

Business of the House

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for the forthcoming week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 15 JANUARY—Motions relating to the Capital Allowances Bill.
Second Reading of the Capital Allowances Bill.
Motions relating to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
TUESDAY 16 JANUARY—Motion relating to the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
Second Reading of the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill.
Motion on the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions)(No.4) Order 2000.
WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY Consideration in Committee of the Hunting Bill.
THURSDAY 18 JANUARY—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day].
Until about 4 o'clock, there will be a debate on "Teacher Supply and Standards in Education", followed by a debate entitled "The Government's Failure to Maintain an adequate Police Force". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
FRIDAY 19 JANUARY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill.
WEDNESDAY 24 JANUARY—Opposition Day [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 25 JANuARY—Debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 JANUARY—Debate on the rural and urban White Papers on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Monday 29 January, there will be a debate relating to Members of the European Parliament and the audit of expenditure by EP political groups in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to be reminded that on Wednesday 17 January, there will be a debate relating to sport in European Standing Committee C.
[Wednesday 17 January 2001:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: (a) COM (99) 644: The Helsinki Report on Sport; (b) COM (99) 643: Doping in Sport; (c) Unnumbered EM dated 23 November 2000: Declaration on Sport; Relevant European Scrutiny committee reports: HC 23-viii, HC 23-xiii and HC 23-xxxi (1999–2000).
Wednesday 29 January 2001:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union documents: (a) 9712/00, Statute for Members of the European Parliament; (b) 9560/00, Audit of expenditure by EP political groups. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee reports: HC 23-xxvii and HC 23-xxix (1999–2000) and HC 28-ii (2000–01).]

Mrs. Browning: I thank the right hon. Lady for announcing the business, but I regret that the Government have not listened to the Opposition's requests about the Committee stage of the Hunting Bill, the first part of which will be taken on the Floor of the House. That debate will still be restricted to one day, which we consider to be entirely inadequate.
The Leader of the House did not mention Tuesday 23 January. I assume, therefore, that there is a vacant slot, and perhaps she might be receptive to some of our suggestions about the business that may be taken on that day. At the last business questions before the House rose for the Christmas recess, I raised with her the increasing concern, both in the House and outside, about Equitable Life and the role played in the past three years, first by the Treasury and subsequently by the Financial Services Authority. There is a widespread belief that the supervisory role of those authorities was not carried out properly. In the circumstances, we believe that that merits a debate on the Floor of the House so that all hon. Members can make their representations.
Another matter is still pending from the Christmas recess. Members noticed with interest the Deputy Prime Minister's activities during the recess, especially his presence at Leeds station. Leeds station is, of course, a mainline station for this country. At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister was categoric that the problems there would be resolved, but there are still no mainline services from Leeds. Will a debate on that matter be held in Government time, because it obviously affects not only those who live in the Leeds area, but those who wish to use that line, both north and south?
Given the very worrying job losses in manufacturing, especially in Wales, will the Leader of the House ensure that we have the traditional St. David's day debate on the Floor of the House on 1 March? As that happens to be a Thursday, it would not be difficult to accommodate that request if she was minded to do so.
Will the Government also consider holding a debate on early years education? The Leader of the House will be aware that 1,000 playgroups closed last year and that 1,500 pre-schools have closed since new Labour came to office. The Pre-School Learning Alliance anticipates that another 1,700 will close as a result of the Government's policies, so it would be appropriate for the Government to allocate sufficient time for hon. Members to debate that on the Floor of the House.
Will the right hon. Lady consider very carefully the consequences of the way in which business is now taken in respect of programme motions and Programming Sub-Committees? I attended the first Programming Sub-Committee, which met this week to consider the programme for the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. The Chairman suspended the Committee for 15 minutes for the Clerk and others to take advice about the proceedings and how the Committee's business should be conducted. I draw to the right hon. Lady's attention the fact that no minutes are


taken of such Committees. If hon. Members refer to what is said in such a Committee at the beginning of the Standing Committee, as happened this week with the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, it is a matter of one Member's word against another as to how that Committee's deliberations proceeded. That is most unsatisfactory. Even worse, a manuscript amendment was tabled in the Sub-Committee and a vote was taken, but there is no record of how that vote was conducted for the House to consider.
During this week's business, Mr Speaker, you ruled that such Committees would be subject to Select Committee rules. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to consider seriously the fact that those proceedings are the product of the Modernisation Committee, which she chairs. She will know that those proceedings and the proposal that she brought to House did not have the support of the official Opposition. Those proposals having been introduced by the Leader of the House, who has responsibility for the whole House, I must ask her to sort out the mess that has been created and to return such proceedings to the Floor of the House so that we can all make our views known.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady raised the issue of having only one day to debate hunting. I do not recall being asked for more than one day on the Floor in Committee on the Hunting Bill, nor do I see any great necessity for it. It is a relatively simple issue. Members will have differing views about the options that we should pursue. The whole idea is that a decision in principle will be made as to which option commands the greatest support in the House and that the detail will then be examined in Committee.
The hon. Lady asked me about the business for Tuesday 23 January. I said that some matters were still under discussion and gave a broad pattern for the business for the week after next. She will know that the usual channels are discussing those matters and that there is good reason for that.
The hon. Lady raised the matter of Equitable Life. That is under discussion and it will no doubt be examined in the course of the normal business of the House. At the moment I do not envisage finding time for a special debate, but I will keep the issue under review and draw her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends who deal with these matters.
I am aware that some safety work is continuing at Leeds station. The hon. Lady will be aware that questions to the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department will be taken on Tuesday and no doubt an opportunity may arise to raise the matter then.
Obviously, I will consider through the usual channels the potential for a St. David's day debate.
I was a little surprised at the hon. Lady's remarks about the closure of pre-schools and playgroups as a result of Government policies. I take it that she means the enormous expansion of nursery education that the Government have undertaken.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend did not mean that.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady did not mean that, according to her right hon. Friend. Nevertheless, she must surely be aware of that investment and of the resulting far

greater opportunities available to our young children. She should also know that the Government have put extra resources into playgroups precisely to help them deal with the knock-on effects of this different range of opportunities available to the youngest children.
The hon. Lady asked me to look at the management of Programming Sub-Committees. She will be aware that it was always envisaged that they would work by informal arrangement—[HON. MEMBERS:"By whom?"] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me, I will finish the sentence—along the lines of those undertaken successfully, for example, in the Greater London Authority Standing Committee. It was always envisaged that they would work along the lines of previously existing Business Sub-Committees. [Interruption.] As for the issue—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Beckett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If this is not to be a dialogue, we will have to proceed differently.
As for whether or not minutes should be taken and what reference should be made to the discussions and so on, those issues are in part at least, Mr. Speaker, for you and the Vote Office. Of course I undertake to consider these matters, but I cannot undertake to bring back to the Floor of the House for discussion a procedure which the House has begun on an experimental basis, simply because one Committee has met and the hon. Lady is unhappy with its proceedings.
The House as a whole has decided to adopt this new set of procedures, albeit not with the consent of all Opposition Members. It follows recommendations by successive Committees of this House for at least 10 years and it offers the Opposition an opportunity, should they wish to take it, to make constructive use of time for debate and to make sure that all legislation is properly debated. [Interruption.] Let me make it clear from the Dispatch Box that there is absolutely no compulsion on the Opposition to use this time intelligently—and there is no evidence to suggest that they intend to do so.

Mr. Clive Soley: In considering her future programme, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the clear will of this House in the debate on the last Modernisation Committee report that we should end the nonsense of legislating in the early hours of the morning and that we should reassure the British people that we are not time wasting in debates on the Floor of the House or in Committee, but giving detailed scrutiny to legislation passing through the House? That was the desire and aim of the House. It is what British people want. It is what the Conservative party and others who are opposed to the modernisation of this place have been trying to stop. If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend ensure that further measures are introduced to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised, even if the Opposition are unable or unwilling to engage in that process?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct in saying that the purpose of the changes proposed by the Modernisation Committee is to ensure that we make better and more effective use of the time available to the House, and that we use that time a little earlier in the evening than


has sometimes been the case. That is principally because successive generations of hon. Members of all parties have observed that people are not at their best in the early hours of the morning—they only think they are.
My hon. Friend also made an important point about scrutiny, which reminded me that, in many ways, there is no advantage to the Government in proceeding in the way that we have identified. It is open to any Government to guillotine and to curtail discussion on any legislation. In so doing, they can, if they wish, ensure that it is impossible for the House to have time to examine parts of legislation, detailed debate on which the Government—any Government—might find embarrassing.
A mechanism is now potentially available to the House whereby the Opposition can decide how to use the time available and decide on which items in the legislation they wish to focus the debate. However, I repeat that there can be no compulsion on them to do so. If the Opposition wish to continue to waste time rather than to use it valuably, there is nothing that we can do to make them change.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Can we have an urgent and early debate on the issue of the health hazards for our service personnel from depleted uranium? Is the Leader of the House aware of the report that was revealed this morning, apparently prepared by an official, which suggests that this hazard was identified no less than four years ago? Can we be told urgently—even before such a debate takes place—whether that advice was available to Ministers or their immediate advisers, and when it was available? Was it before or after the previous general election?
Reverting to the issue of scrutiny raised by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), I endorse his request that we reconsider that matter. Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's management of their business this week has degenerated into a ghastly shambles that is certainly undermining the whole case for the modernisation agenda?
I particularly ask the right hon. Lady to consider whether we need to take the programme motion immediately after the Second Reading debate. Such a practice means that we cannot consider any of the issues that arose in the debate. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have already made the point that it is extremely difficult. I have re-read the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee, which the right hon. Lady chairs and on which I sit, but I found no reference to the programme motion having immediately to follow the Second Reading debate. There seems to be no technical reason why it should, and not doing so would remove one of the objections that both Opposition parties rightly share to the way in which the business of the House has been handled this week.
Will the Leader of the House reconsider the basic requirement of the Modernisation Committee recommendations, which was that there should be informal discussions about the whole of the Government's business? I appreciate that this year might not be a useful one from the point of view of avoiding oppositionitis on the Conservative Benches, but even so, no attempt has

been made to discuss the handling of the Government's business on an all-party basis. That is why chaos has ensued this week.

Mrs. Beckett: My understanding is that the document about depleted uranium to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which appeared in the press this week, relates to an incomplete draft paper that was produced as long ago as 1993. Much of its content is said to be scientifically incorrect or misleading. Consequently, there is nothing to add to the statement that was made about the issue earlier this week.
Regarding the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised on the handling of Programming Sub-Committees and programme motions, his recollection and mine differ somewhat. He may recall that we discussed whether the vote should be taken as a package, recognising that that would entail a number of votes after 10 o'clock. It was always my understanding that the Government's proposal for the programme motion would be taken as package on Second Reading.
As for the general discussion on business, we may be speaking at cross-purposes. The intention, which I understand has been carried out, was that there should be informal discussions on initial reactions to the Queen's Speech. There were proposals for a more formal process, but they were not accepted. Instead, we agreed that the discussions should be informal and informative, at least in part, so that we did not tie the hands of the Opposition by making them commit to decisions early on in the life of a Parliament before more information became available.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend look at early-day motion 175, which I have tabled?
[That this House expresses its disgust with, and condemnation of, Colley Civil Engineering of 76 Meagill Rise, Otley, West Yorshire, for persisting in failing to pay their former employee, Mr. Mark Aspray of Gorton, Manchester, £280 due to him in wages since April 2000 and for deliberately refusing to respond to correspondence sent on behalf of Mr. Aspray by his Member of Parliament, the Right honourable Member for Manchester, Gorton; warns other potential employees to steer clear of these disgraceful employers; and calls on potential customers and clients of Colley Engineering to have nothing to do with an organisation which cheats those who work for it.]
It relates to the swindling of my constituent, Mr. Mark Aspray, of pay due to him from Colley Civil Engineering of Otley. Will she also look at early-day motion 176, which relates to the swindling of Mr. John Carroll in my constituency of pay due to him by Ideal Cleaning Contractors of Farnworth?
Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for the House to debate those motions so that I am able to draw attention to the way in which those companies not only swindled their employees, but will, no doubt, swindle their customers? It is intolerable that they should behave in such a manner and not respond to demands for the money to be paid.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my right hon. Friend's anger on behalf of his constituents and, indeed, his concern, as I understand it from his early-day motions, that approaches to the companies have produced no


response. All hon. Members would deplore that. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time to explore the issues in detail. We have provided substantially more time for debate and scrutiny in Westminster Hall, and he might like to consider raising the matter there.

Sir Peter Emery: As this is the first time that the Leader of the House has been at the Dispatch Box this year, may I wish her a happy new year? I hope that she enjoyed her visit to New York. Her absence would explain why she has not entirely understood some of this week's nonsense regarding the programming procedures of Committees. Does she accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to ensure that we can debate in Committee all aspects of legislation? That was the intention of the recommendations of the Programming Sub-Committee. I am afraid that the Government did not make it clear from the Dispatch Box during the debates that that was the intention.
The idea was that the Government would attempt to meet, with all reasonableness, the Opposition's demands for the debates upstairs in Committee to be properly planned and programmed, which should be to the advantage of the Opposition. Will the right hon. Lady make it absolutely clear that the Government share that intention? That would defuse some of the feelings that are boiling up, as illustrated by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—or is it Shepherd's Bush? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shepherd's pie."] The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) has a difficult enough job; we do not have to add to it.
If the right hon. Lady makes it clear that that is the Government's intention, the experiment might have a chance of working.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I return new year good wishes to the whole House.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reaffirm that it was absolutely the intention of the Modernisation Committee's proposals, which were carried by the House on a free vote, to make public what all Members of any experience in the House know to be the case, namely, the date where the Government anticipate and want a Bill to leave Committee. The aim is to provide transparency in the management of discussions on legislation and, in particular, to ensure that if the Opposition want proper scrutiny and discussion of a Bill, that scrutiny and discussion can focus on the issues that members of the Committee, especially Opposition Members, believe to be of the most importance and weight.
I am slightly surprised to learn that the right hon. Gentleman feels that there is any dubiety about that. However, I undertake to write to all my ministerial colleagues reminding them of our purpose and making it clear that the Government hope that discussions will proceed in that way and believe that the arrangements will make a contribution to the scrutiny of legislation which will be to the advantage of the whole House.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Health is today chairing an important seminar on organ retention? That follows the disclosure that organs of children who

died at Alder Hey hospital and elsewhere were removed without informed consent. When the report on Alder Hey has been published, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the major, sensitive issues involved are properly debated in the House?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of today's discussions, which are of great interest and will arouse great concern throughout the House. On the assumption that there are weighty issues involved that will benefit from further scrutiny in the House, I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's request in mind and continue to discuss the matter, not least through the usual channels.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the Government's announcement last July about resurfacing concrete roads? Is she aware that there is great disappointment in Doveridge that according to the Highways Agency's announcement on 29 December—a day on which there was a great deal of media interest—the A50 is not to be included in the programme for 2001?

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware that there are improvements that many of us want, not least because of the considerable under-investment over many years. I cannot undertake to find time for a specific debate on the A50 in Doveridge, but I can again recommend the virtues of the extra time available in Westminster Hall.

Mr. David Winnick: As someone who has not always been in favour of programming business for various reasons, which I shall not go into now, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that the experiment will be judged largely on how far the Opposition of the day are able to discuss in Committee all the controversial matters that they want to discuss? If that happens, there will undoubtedly be a case for the experiment to be taken seriously, and not in the frivolous way in which the Opposition are conducting matters.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes the powerful, entirely correct point that in a rational world the experiment should be judged on whether it provides the opportunity for adequate scrutiny. He also makes the valid point that it is always open to any Opposition simply to waste whatever time is available—and if the Conservative party ultimately decides to do that, the changes will not benefit the scrutiny of legislation for which the Government wish and the House decided to provide. If it becomes apparent that time is being wasted, that will affect how people judge the experiment because, however much Members of all parties kid themselves, time wasting always brings the House into disrepute. The public do not understand when we waste time; they understand when we use it well.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The Leader of the House will recall the commitment that she gave me at business questions on 16 November about the Government's continuing consideration of the Liaison Committee proposals on parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. Did the substance of Tuesday night's debate on setting up the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee, both as to the proportion and the relevant backgrounds of Back Benchers proposed for


membership, reinforce or diminish the arguments that she deployed on behalf of the Executive in the 9 November debate on the Liaison Committee proposals?

Mrs. Beckett: Although I shall certainly do so, I am afraid that I have not had an opportunity to study in depth the link between the debate that I know was held on that issue earlier this week and the Liaison Committee report. I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that at this moment it is hard to envisage that it would be likely to change the views that I expressed then.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of early-day motion 179—a very good motion that refers to taking back the track?
[That this House congratulates the railway unions on the launch of their campaign 'Take Back the Track' in the face of Railtrack PLC's failure to meet its obligation to provide a safe and efficient rail network; further considers that the current structure is insufficient to restore public confidence and attract people back to rail travel; and consequently calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to return Railtrack PLC to an appropriate form of public ownership.]
As a Member of Parliament for a railway town, my right hon. Friend will understand the virtues of such a motion. Will she find time for a debate on it? If not, will she bear it in mind that railway privatisation was one of the craziest things that the Tories did in 18 years, and that it was done with the purpose of lining the pockets of their friends? It will be necessary, because the subject will not go away, to take the track back into public ownership. If we cannot have a debate, will she join me in ensuring that that becomes part and parcel of the next Labour manifesto? It will be a sure-fire winner.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is continuing concern about the operation of rail, but I fear that there are no plans to do as the early-day motion suggests and return Railtrack to public ownership, although he will know that we are reviewing whether there are any impediments in the current arrangement to the provision of a safe and efficient rail service. He will also be well aware of the enormous increase in resources that the Government intend to make available to rectify the problems that have arisen as a result of decades of under-investment.

Mr. Skinner: I am not suggesting paying for it.

Mrs. Beckett: No, and I am well aware that my hon. Friend would be the last to suggest that moneys should be expended on compensation. Although his suggestion is interesting and we all share his wish to make improvements in rail transport provision, that specific path is not one that, at present, the Government are contemplating.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Hon. Members on both sides of the House from fishing constituencies will acknowledge and appreciate the fact that Government time has been found on 25 January to

discuss important issues facing the industry. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Fisheries Minister will be able to react during that Adjournment debate to the important consultations in Brussels next week on the ludicrous and counterproductive European Commission proposals for prosecution in respect of cod fishery in the North sea in the ensuing six months? If he is able to do so, it would also be helpful if he could say a word about any progress being made to get the Commission to abandon its equally counterproductive and damaging proposals to cut the prawn quota for next year.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. He was one of those Members who pressed for the fishing debate and he understood why we were unable to hold it earlier. Whether it will be possible for the Fisheries Minister to give such a reaction will depend a little on how the European Union discussions go and whether there is something constructive that he can report. However, I undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the Fisheries Minister, who will, I know, take them seriously and give the House as much information as he can.

Angela Smith: My right hon. Friend may not have had the opportunity to read this week's Basildon Evening Echo. Had she done so, she would have read of the tragic death of a brave young woman of 18 who died after waiting two years for a suitable donor for a transplant operation. On looking further into the matter, it was discovered that in 1994 the rules were changed so that kidney and organ donor cards were not sent automatically to chemist shops and GPs, who have to apply for and order them. As a result, there is a great shortage of them and people across the country no longer have the choice to take up a donor card and donate an organ after their death if they want to.
Can we have a debate on the subject to draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health? We must reverse the rules introduced in 1994 and send cards automatically to all chemists and GPs.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important and serious issue. The House no doubt wishes to convey its condolences to her constituent's family, especially in the difficult circumstances that my hon. Friend describes. I readily admit that I was not aware that the rules had been changed in 1994 in the way that she identifies. I have carried a donor card for more years than I care to remember, and share her view that it is important that as many people as possible who would be willing to be organ donors are able to do so. The most important thing is for people to make sure not only that they carry a card, but that they make their family and friends aware of their wishes in that respect. I will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health who, I know, will take them seriously.

Mr. John Hayes: Perhaps because of my characteristic generosity, I assume that the Leader of the House innocently misunderstood the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for a debate on early years education. The right hon. Lady should know that the Select Committee report published today calls for diversity of provision in early years, yet since 1997 we


have 30,000 fewer places in pre-schools and playgroups, and we have a fall of 20,000 in the number of providers. That includes a sharp fall in the number of child minders. There is a crisis across the sector. We need an urgent debate, and I repeat the call made earlier by my hon. Friend for such a debate.

Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the wish for diversity. No one on either side of the House would deny that diversity in provision is welcome, and it would be wrong for the impression to be created that there has been some deliberate plan to reduce diversity in provision. To some extent, a re-balancing of provision is taking place as a result of the far greater opportunities for nursery education opened up under the Government. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for an early debate on the matter. We have just had Education questions, but the hon. Gentleman knows that among the other virtues of Westminster Hall is the fact that there is infinitely more time—four times as much—for discussion of Select Committee reports. He may want to press, through the Liaison Committee, for the report to be one of those debated there.

Mr. Tony Colman: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an early debate on aviation policy? The long-awaited consultation paper, "The Future of Aviation", was issued on 12 December. There was no Government statement or debate at that time, nor has there been since, so I urge that upon my right hon. Friend. Will she pass on to her colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions my thanks for their decision shortly before the recess that almost halved the number of night flights going over Putney? I hope that that will lead to a total ban on night flights.
My constituents have expressed concern that the consultation paper clearly states that the White Paper will be tabled only after a decision is taken on terminal 5 at Heathrow. It is extremely important that my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate covering aviation policy as a whole, but which particularly takes soundings of the views of the House on terminal 5, which I hotly oppose, as did some 99 per cent. of the people who appeared at the public inquiry.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the discussions that are under way, and for the changes that have already been undertaken to try to achieve a fairer approach to aircraft noise. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but I can recommend to him, too, the advantages of a debate in Westminster Hall. I also remind him that it is questions to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on Tuesday, and he may find an opportunity then to raise the issue.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I thought that the question asked by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) was revealing. Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that the Opposition have played entirely by the rules this week—her rules—and that it would be monstrous and tyrannical if the Government, at the urging of their Back Benchers, tried to change the rules? The only weapon available to any Opposition, which she would have used—and, indeed did use—when she was in opposition, is time. Are the right

hon. Lady and her colleagues beginning to realise that the old system based on consent was better? It may have resulted in people getting home to bed earlier. The right hon. Lady can go on changing the rules again and again, but we shall go on fighting the Government and ensuring that this is a proper Parliament with a proper debate on scrutiny.

Mrs. Beckett: The basic premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is misplaced. In all my years in the House, I have never ever wasted time on fruitless discussion of pointless and trivial matters. I have always planned any Committee stage of which I was part, and have always planned and programmed discussion to make sure that all matters could be aired, so that, in particular, most time is given to the most important matters. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's basic premise is mistaken. I am not saying that there have never been Members who use time in the way that he describes, but I have never found that attractive and have never thought that it appeals to public or those who wish us to scrutinise legislation properly.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say, however, that, as with any other place of work, this place works best, most efficiently and most effectively when there is broad consent and understanding of what we are trying to do. We are supposed to be trying to scrutinise legislation, not engaging in self-indulgent time wasting.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that, with the change in the American Administration and the Bush takeover, there will be a welcome change in foreign policy on Iraq. Some of us would welcome taking a more aggressive position. Could my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on Iraq, so that Members' varying and changing views could be well understood by the Government, as we ourselves begin to reform our foreign policy on Iraq?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to identify the fact that those issues are under continuing review, discussion and debate. He will know from his many years of experience in the effective use of the procedures of the House that debates on foreign affairs on the Floor of the House tend to range over a much greater expanse than one area of the world, let alone one country. One of the many reasons why the Modernisation Committee recommended that extra time should be made available in the procedures of Westminster Hall was to allow for debates of that kind. I believe that some such debates have already taken place, and have been found both constructive and genuinely useful by those who took part in them. Perhaps I could recommend that course to my hon. Friend.

Sir Sydney Chapman: The right hon. Lady will recall that, in two successive sets of business questions last year, I felt impelled to pursue her in seeking a debate on the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on our legislation and regulations. Re-reading her last oral answer to me, she rather pooh-poohed the importance of that. Will she look at the matter again? I could give her instances in which the Act will have a profound effect on parts of the town and country planning system other than the appeal system, which is the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords. For example, since I


asked those questions, Members on both sides of the House have recognised the fundamental importance of the issue in arbitration in the construction industry. If we cannot have a debate on the Floor of the House next week, will the right hon. Lady kindly look at having it before Easter?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to have a debate on the matter on the Floor of the House although, again, I would certainly recommend to the hon. Gentleman the greater opportunities available in Westminster Hall. Of course, I take his point and I apologise if I appeared to pooh-pooh it, as I did not intend to do so in any way. I simply took, and continue to take, the view that it is perhaps a little early to assess the impact of the changes. Many concerns which, I accept, are perfectly legitimate and reasonable, are as yet somewhat theoretical. I shall obviously keep the matter under review and consideration. However, at this moment in time, I am not sure that we are likely to find time for an early debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. David Chaytor: May I tell my right hon. Friend about a recent incident in my constituency, involving the vicious racist murder of a local taxi driver, Mr. Tariq Javed? Would she join me in sending condolences to Mr. Javed's family and in expressing thanks to the local police for their efficient conduct of the investigation into the incident? Does she agree that there appears to be a rise across the country in racist incidents of this kind, and that those politicians who choose to use intolerance and xenophobia for their own political purposes have a special responsibility for creating the climate in which the growth in racist incidents takes place? Will she find time in the near future to arrange for a full and frank debate on racist incidents in the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the whole House sends its condolences to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. It is always appalling when somebody's life is taken in such a manner. The House will also want to join him in appreciating the efficient and speedy way in which the police conducted the investigation. Many hon. Members will share his understandable concern that none of us should do or say anything that fosters a climate in which it appears that racist attacks are acceptable. I am not aware of a growing trend such as that to which he referred. Every such event is particularly shocking. I shall draw his remarks and observations about the trend to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in case there is evidence or opinion that backs them up, but I fear that I cannot find time for an early debate on the matter in the near future. Perhaps I can recommend to him also the additional opportunities for debate elsewhere.

Mr. Stephen Day: The Leader of the House has my greatest respect for her abilities in her office. I do not, however, understand why somebody with those qualities can suggest to the House that she is the sole arbiter of what is important and what should be given time in Parliament. In any democracy, it is the right of the Opposition to decide what is important and what should be given parliamentary time. When she expresses such

views and tries to impose on the House what shall be dealt with and in what time, she is patronising the Opposition; she offers us patronage that we then refuse. The Liberal Democrats might be bought off with such patronage, but they should be on the Labour side of the House anyway. Opposition Members will not be bought off, as we put parliamentary democracy and its effectiveness above all else.

Mrs. Beckett: I say with respect—I have respect for the hon. Gentleman—that I share many of his views about the importance of the use of time in the House. I am not clear, however, about where he believes that I suggested that I should be the sole arbiter of what is important. In fact, that is the opposite of what I have repeatedly pointed out: we have offered the Opposition the chance to decide how time should be used. As for the specific date when legislation leaves the Committee stage, that has always been in the purview of the Government; it is merely that nobody used to say anything about it.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the possibility of allowing a debate on the middle east? An Adjournment debate occurred in Westminster Hall in October, but far more hon. Members wanted to participate than could be accommodated. When I think back to crises, in Kosovo and Bosnia, I remember frequent ministerial statements and debates in the House. Since September and October last year, when violence erupted in the occupied territories, in the west bank and Gaza, we have not heard a statement from a Minister or been given an opportunity for debate. In the light of the current serious circumstances, the middle east, like Iraq and the change of presidency in America, deserves the attention of the whole House.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right that the middle east peace process raises issues that are of concern among hon. Members of all parties. I understand fully that there is rarely enough time to discuss all the issues that hon. Members rightly feel to be important and of pressing concern. I fear, however, that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a special debate on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend knows, there are other opportunities for raising the matter, not least Foreign Office questions on 23 January.

Mr. David Heath: If indeed there is a vacant day on Tuesday 23, may I urge the right hon. Lady, in the strongest terms, to use that time for a debate on Lord Phillips's report on BSE? It will be almost exactly three months since that report was published. In Germany, two Ministers have resigned after a handful of cases. In Britain, the previous Government presided over events that led to the tragic deaths of many people, caused businesses throughout the agricultural world to go to the wall and resulted in an estimated cost of almost £5 billion to the United Kingdom. Is it not time the House had a chance to debate those matters properly?

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that there is no such thing as a vacant day in this life, but discussion is taking place about how to make most effective use of time on that day. I fear that we will not be able as speedily as that to have a debate on the Phillips report on the BSE crisis. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was something like


a 16-volume report, and when it was first published my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture said that he wanted to give it the full consideration and weight that the work involved demanded, and that he hoped others would do the same. I anticipate that there will be a debate on that report, but perhaps not quite as speedily as the hon. Gentleman would like.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that Education and Employment questions are dominated by education questions? In the Question Time that we have just had, only two of the 11 questions that were dealt with were employment questions. Out of the 36 on the Order Paper, only six were employment questions. Many of us want to raise issues at Employment questions, such as the problem that I keep pursuing—Biwater at Clay Cross, where 700 jobs have now gone and there are serious problems of regeneration. Should we not have separate Question Times for education and employment?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend uses all the opportunities available to him properly to raise the concerns of his constituents. The number of questions on education as opposed to employment depends on the draw, which is done randomly. I understand the wish to have further question sessions and to split the two subjects, but I fear that I cannot undertake to my hon. Friend that such a step is likely to be taken in the near future. There is always more demand for the opportunity to raise issues than any use of time could possibly supply, but my hon. Friend is a clear example and standard of how, no matter what the fundamental provision is and what the rules are about the way this place works, people manage to raise their points when they wish to do so.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What steps will the right hon. Lady take to protect the business of the House next week from the shambles that befell it on Monday night this week, when the House was without a quorum? Will she seek to maintain a quorum on the Government Benches next week? Will that quorum accord with the aspirations of major Labour party backers, in that it should not be hideously white, grotesquely male or of sadly uniform sexual proclivity?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not quite sure how a representative sample of the House would fit that definition. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government will manage their part in the public's business and the House's business effectively and efficiently. I wish I could see evidence that the same was true of the Opposition.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we discuss early-day motion 2217, tabled on 24 June 1993? It said that the House condemned
the Government's failure to respond positively to hon. Members' concern on the dangers of depleted uranium weapons,
and called for an investigation into the health consequences for British troops. That was one of many concerns expressed from 1991 to 1993 about uranium depleted weapons. The leaked letter today, although imperfect, reveals that the Ministry of Defence was genuinely concerned and knew about the likely consequences of depleted uranium in creating cancers among our soldiers. The story of the previous

Government's policy—the denial of information and the neurotically secretive answers from the MOD—should be exposed to the House.
We should have a proper debate on this issue. The inquiry into the effects of these weapons should not be taking place now: it should have taken place 10 years ago.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and powerful point. Some of the concerns being discussed today have been discussed for seven or more years—certainly during the Conservative party's time in office.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and others will continue to raise these issues, and to hear them aired and debated properly in the House. All I can tell him now, however, is that—he probably knows this—there is still a dispute about the nature of the scientific evidence relating to the impact of such material. No doubt that question, like others, will continue to be discussed, as is perfectly proper; but I fear that I cannot find the time for a debate on the Floor of the House of the kind that my hon. Friend wants in the near future. In any event, it is clear from what he himself said that such an occasion would not provide the only opportunity for Members to give their views. The debate on this issue has been raging, and will continue to rage, for many years.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Will the Leader of the House afford us time at an early date to discuss transport in and for London? Is she aware that London Underground's rail unions are balloting their members today on industrial action—in effect, politically motivated industrial action against her party's proposals for modernisation of the tube? Is she also aware that the Mayor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), is egging the unions on, at a time when Londoners are paying even higher tube fares and receiving ever worse service? Is this not an intolerable state of affairs, and should it not be addressed by the whole House?

Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place next week. He will also know that there has been continuing discussion for some time about how we can best inject into London Underground—and other parts of our transport system—investment that London Underground has needed for decades, and did not receive under a Conservative Government.
These will continue to be matters for discussion, but I fear I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on them in the near future.

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley): Can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on town and country planning issues? Only this morning, Conservative-controlled Bradford city council's planning committee decided to approve a development brief for new housing on the Baildon bank reservoir site, off West lane in Baildon. I am appalled that the threat of development should hang over that greenfield site, given all the consequences—not least the traffic that such development would generate.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, expressed on behalf of his constituents, about the impact


of the proposed decision. I fear I cannot undertake to find the time for a special debate on the Floor of the House, but I remind him, as I reminded the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), that questions to the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take place on Tuesday.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Defence following yesterday's announcement of significant job losses at BAE Systems, formerly British Aerospace?
My constituency contains a plant in Samlesbury, and another nearby in Warton. We understand from the unions that there may be up to 2,000 job losses, and that they will fall significantly on the military side. Moreover, they will disproportionately affect a number of smaller businesses that rely on a healthy BAE Systems in the north-west. We have enormous skills there, and if we lose those jobs now it is unlikely that we shall ever regain them. If the Government are serious about having a strategic military defence capability, we must be more intelligent about the way in which we procure our defence.

Mrs. Beckett: I am of course aware of the announcements made by BAE Systems, and, as I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are liaising closely with the company with regard to the implications of those announcements. He will also know that we have repeatedly demonstrated our commitment both to the aerospace industry as a whole and to BAE Systems, through launch investment and other supportive action. We shall continue to work with the company to identify any further steps that can be taken.
I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the House, but perhaps I can recommend the virtues of Westminster Hall.

Mr. Alan Simpson: May I repeat the calls for an urgent statement and debate on the risk assessment process in relation to depleted uranium? The most disturbing part of the news today is that United Kingdom service personnel were apparently given the all-clear by the MOD screening process, but were discovered to have high levels of depleted uranium in their system when they put their samples through the Canadian scrutiny process. Can the House have an opportunity to discuss the urgent need, not for a voluntary system of screening, but for a universal and inclusive system that is administered by the Department of Health, not at the convenience of the MOD?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and perhaps slightly different point about the way in which any screening procedure should be carried out. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue on the Floor of the House in the near future, but I certainly undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Health.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wish you, Mr. Speaker, and the Leader of the House a happy new

year. Having got that cordiality out of the way, in view of the Prime Minister's failure to give an adequate answer in Prime Minister's questions yesterday to the serious problem of recruitment and retention of special constables, will she make a request to the Home Secretary so that we could question him on that subject, which is particularly important in view of the national fall in police numbers and the closure of three rural police stations in my constituency recently?

Mrs. Beckett: Part of the underlying premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is in error, as it is my understanding that we are beginning, although slowly, to turn the corner on police numbers, no doubt partly as a result of the enormous investment that the Government have been prepared to put into the police service. He makes a separate and different point about the special constables. I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the matter in the near future.

Mr. John Cryer: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the question of a debate on early-day motion 179, which was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? She referred, rightly, to the Government's increased investment in the railways, but inevitably a lot of that investment will end up in the pockets of shareholders and directors, which is precisely what privatisation was designed to do—shift public funds into private pockets. The vast majority of the public are sick and tired of seeing the spivs and cowboys running the railways and they want us to take it back tomorrow.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the strong feelings that have been expressed by my hon. Friend and others in the House about the developments of recent times. I also understand his anxiety that the substantial investment that is being made available should be well and effectively used. It remains the case that I cannot find time for a special debate on those issues in the near future, but I have no doubt that, over the course of that investment programme, my hon. Friends will find many opportunities to raise them.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the right hon. Lady minded to make time available on a Government day for an early debate on the plight of rural post offices? Post offices are writing to me at the rate of one a week to announce the closure or threat of closure of sub-post offices throughout the Vale of York. That is extremely alarming to constituents, who face the prospect of not being able to draw benefits and pensions at those sub-post offices. It has recently emerged that vacancies are being advertised offering less pay per hour than the minimum wage. Is that contributing to the problem? May we have an early debate to discuss that and a pledge of a positive future for post offices in villages?

Mrs. Beckett: Of course I understand the concern that has been expressed by the hon. Lady and I accept that it will be shared by her constituents. She will know that both the Government and the Post Office have expressed concern, although she will be aware that, unfortunately, it is by no means a record: far greater numbers of post


offices have closed in the past. Nevertheless, we continue to express concern at the rate of closures. Further analysis of what is happening is being undertaken. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is right to say that, in many cases, such post offices are reopening.
The. Government are committed to maintaining a network of post offices and will continue to work with the Post Office at national level in order to do so. Although Department of Trade and Industry questions are next week, when she might find an opportunity to raise the matter, I cannot say that there is likely to be a special debate on the Floor of the House soon.

Mr. Hilary Benn: Will my right hon. Friend give further consideration to finding time to discuss the closure of Leeds city station, given the scale of the inconvenience to people and the fact that Railtrack has described the closure as unacceptable? I recognise that engineers are working around the clock to install the new signalling equipment, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the public are entitled to accurate information from Railtrack about when major projects such as this will be completed? In this case, by contrast, they have been given three successive deadlines for completion of the work.

Mrs. Beckett: I very much sympathise with the concerns that my hon. Friend raises on behalf of his constituents. I share his view that it is unacceptable to give people unsound information. That leads to doubts that those engaged in such works are clear about the scale of their task.
Although I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, I remind my hon. Friend that it is Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions questions on Tuesday. If my hon. Friend succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may well have a chance to raise the matter then.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Leader of the House feel proud or embarrassed at the fact that her ministerial colleagues are starting to make her look like a paragon of honesty and openness in government? At business questions on 21 December, I asked her about the Cabinet Committee set up to look at job losses in manufacturing, and she gave me a commendably frank and full response. I subsequently tabled a question to the Department of Trade and Industry, which denied that such a group existed. I raised the same matter at Education and Employment questions with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who would neither confirm nor deny the group's existence.
The Leader of the House is clearly ahead of the field among her colleagues when it comes to offering honest and open replies to questions from hon. Members of all parties. Will she therefore give some guidance to her ministerial colleagues, and will she make time for a statement to the House on the findings of that Cabinet Committee with regard to job losses in manufacturing?

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks, which I am sure were not intended to do me any harm, but I can undertake only to consider his question. No hon. Member wants there to be job losses, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under this Government, they

are on nothing like the scale experienced under the Government that he supported. The Government continue to work with manufacturing industry to try and help to resolve the difficulties that it faces.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that my ministerial colleagues always endeavour to give full information to the House, and that they will continue to do so.

Mr. John Bercow: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. The exercise involved in trying to catch your eye has been most useful.
My question concerns the replies that the Leader of the House gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), the shadow Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). Will she please find time for an urgent statement on flexibility in the total number of hours available for consideration of a Bill in Standing Committee?
The right hon. Lady is usually spectacularly well informed, but is she aware that Conservative members of the Committee considering the Vehicle (Crimes) Bill have been complimented already—by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—on our constructive use of the available time? The problem is that there is too little such time.
Will the right hon. Lady explain why our request for a further nine hours' debate on the 45 clauses of the Bill—to which 33 amendments have been tabled so far—was summarily rejected on the basis of a Government vote in the Programming Sub-Committee? Will she concede that there is a powerful case for the establishment of a formal procedure under which members of the Standing Committee who are not members of the Programming Sub-Committee could put forward their own proposals and draft resolutions regarding the order of consideration of a Bill's clauses?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and worthwhile point and I undertake to consider it and to discuss it with my right hon. and hon. Friends. I would be reluctant—I accept that this is not what he is suggesting—to see us adopting a procedure whereby people are encouraged to spend time discussing how long they ought to spend discussing the legislation, as opposed to discussing the legislation itself. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that. Also, to assume at the beginning of discussions on legislation that more time is likely to be needed will not always encourage the best use of the time available. He will know, I hope, that under the Modernisation Committee's proposals there is room for manoeuvre if it becomes clear that, for whatever reason, time has been inadequate. Obviously, the Government would be prepared constructively to consider that.
We would be reluctant to see this as the thin end of the wedge—always demanding more time regardless of whether it is necessary. I undertake to consider the hon. Gentleman's points and to discuss them with my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Points of Order

Sir Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to take up an issue raised yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When the proceedings of today's sitting are printed, would you cause a study to be made of the amount of the 55 minutes of Education and Employment Question Time that was taken up by ministerial answers? My layman's research found that on at least six occasions, questions that could have been answered in a quarter of a minute took upwards of one and a half minutes. If I were of a more cynical disposition, I would say—and you might agree, Mr. Speaker—that Question Time is being used not to answer questions but to peddle petty party political propaganda. More importantly for the rights of the House and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, because Question Time is limited, you will know, Mr. Speaker, that the greater the time used on ministerial answers, the more it infringes the rights of Back Benchers. Will you look into that please, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I certainly do not intend to become involved in the content of ministerial replies at Question Time, but I am deeply concerned that Back Benchers are not being given an opportunity to ask their questions and that we are not dealing with enough questions because ministerial replies are far too long.
I call on Ministers to bear in mind what I have to say. I want to be able to call Back Benchers, particularly those who have tabled questions. The questions from Opposition Front Benchers could also be a bit sharper. I hope that both parties will consider this matter.

Mr. Phil Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised a point of order about my written question on volunteering. Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman did not do me the courtesy of informing me that he intended to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. Not only was that a gross discourtesy to me—I have informed him that I intended to raise this matter today—but had he approached me, he would have avoided misleading you, Mr. Speaker, and the House.
The hon. Gentleman reported last night that House of Commons Library staff had been told by the Home Office that they would not receive a copy of the answer to my question until after a press conference had been held by the Chancellor at 8.45 this morning. What he failed to tell the House was that the Home Office had told the Library that the answer would be given at 8.30 this morning, before the press conference. He also failed to tell the House that the and the Library had been promised an early copy of the answer, which would be faxed directly to them at 8.30 this morning. That procedure was confirmed to me by the Library staff.
It appears that the hon. Member for Aylesbury has misrepresented the facts and unfairly embroiled Library staff in his misjudged intervention. Surely he should come to the Dispatch Box to put the record straight and to apologise.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) raised a matter with me, and the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) will know that I said that I would look into it. In doing so, I will take on board what the hon. Member for Corby has said. However, I doubt very much whether the hon. Member for Aylesbury would deliberately mislead the House. Perhaps he was misinformed, but he certainly did not deliberately mislead the House. I will take on board what the hon. Member for Corby has said, and I will of course reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I think that that would help.

Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the matter that I raised with the Leader of the House at business questions, I should like to seek your guidance. Having established from the Leader of the House before Christmas that a ministerial group has been set up to look into job losses in manufacturing, I was perplexed to receive from the Department of Trade and Industry a reply to a written question to the effect that no such group exists. Would it be in order for me to table the same question again to the Department of Trade and Industry in the hope of an accurate response, or could the Minister be brought here to correct the misleading impression that he gave?

Mr. Speaker: I have always found the Table Office very helpful, and that is where the hon. Gentleman should go in these circumstances.

Cancer Research

[Relevant documents: The Government's response to the Sixth Report from the Science and Technology Committee, Session 1999–2000, Cm 4928,.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Dr. Michael Clark: I welcome the opportunity to present the report of my Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled "Cancer Research—A Fresh Look". I thank the Liaison Committee for allowing us to have this estimates day debate and the Leader of the House, who has now departed, for agreeing to include it in this Session's busy programme.
The attendance this afternoon may not be as large as we might wish to see for a debate on cancer, but those attending have a great interest in the issue and will, I know, make a useful contribution when the time comes.
Over my lifetime, there have been subjects that one has never talked about. When I was a boy and a youth, homosexuality was never mentioned. When I was a young man—even a married young man—contraception was taboo and not discussed. Yet both those subjects are now quite rightly widely discussed. However, all my life, until very recently, cancer has been a taboo subject, and only recently has it been discussed openly and frequently among people, at work and at leisure.
Why has cancer been a taboo subject for so long? It is not as though it is rare—40 per cent. of people in the United Kingdom will be diagnosed at some time as having cancer. It is not as though cancer is something to be ashamed of: it is not caught from an illicit sexual contact; it is not a sign of unclean living; and it is not contagious—it cannot be transmitted by contact. So why has cancer been ignored in conversation and swept under the carpet for so long?
I believe that the reason is that cancer kills—it kills 25 per cent. of the population. Not only does it kill, however: until very recently, there has been no cure and little hope. If people spoke about cancer they did so in hushed tones, in awe of an unbeatable killer. They knew that for the friend, the relative, the loved one who had cancer, the death knell had sounded. For that reason, cancer was not discussed.
In recent years, there has been an amazing virtuous circle. Medical science has advanced quietly, very often from behind the scenes, without much trumpeting of its success. People have talked about patients surviving cancer. Cancer has slowly become a topic for discussion. The more discussion there has been, the more optimism has entered into the whole issue of cancer treatment and cancer medicine, and the more money has been given by the public to charities for cancer research. As a result, advances have been made in drugs and in treatment; there has been more success, followed by more hope, more money and more results. There is complete openness about cancer because we have got rid of the terrible situation that I described—in which cancer was a killer and there was little hope.
Our report was conceived at the beginning of last year; we started our inquiry in March 2000. We chose its title because we thought that there was a new opportunity on cancer. We were not the first to think so. In 1995,

the Conservative Government published a report on cancer treatment, led by the heads of the national health service in England and in Wales, which became known as the Calman-Hine report. That was the beginning of the consideration of how to improve the organisation and delivery of cancer services.
In July 1999, about eight months before we began our inquiry, the Labour Government issued a report, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which identified cancer as a disease—among others, such as coronary heart disease—on which action was needed to improve the quality of life for people in this country. In October 1999, a national cancer director was appointed. Thus we do not claim that our report is the beginning of a movement for the improvement of cancer treatment; it is part of a continuum—we like to think that it is a helpful and significant part.
Immediately we announced our inquiry, the BBC contacted us and asked if it could make a programme in the "Scrutiny" series on the work that we planned to undertake. We agreed, but with the proviso that the programme should be a serious study of a serious subject—not a frivolous film that aimed to catch Members of Parliament out as they went about their business.
I am delighted to say that the BBC filmed the majority of our eight evidence sessions, in which we heard from 30 eminent witnesses. The corporation also filmed all but one of our five visits to cancer treatment centres in the United Kingdom; and accompanied us on our visits to the United States, Canada and Finland, where we compared and contrasted cancer treatments with those in the UK. A 40-minute film was produced; it was screened on BBC 2 on 29 July. The majority—if not all—members of the Select Committee thought it a worthwhile film; it was well and professionally made, and we thank the BBC for its interest and for its contribution to the fight against cancer.
While we were abroad, we found much to admire; we were grateful that every institution that we visited received us warmly. We were gratified that each of them appreciated and praised the work being done in this country. Our visits abroad were not just about finding out whether other countries were doing better than us, as they were in some respects. Each centre and each country congratulated us on the high quality of individual work in this country, on our centres of excellence and on our research. That does not mean that we cannot do better, because we can, but it does mean that we have international standing.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I note, in my hon. Friend's excellent report, recommendation (m):
More clinical research is needed to determine the benefits that patients derive from complementary therapies.
Is my hon. Friend aware that that recommendation neatly ties in with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on complementary and alternative medicine, which argued for more research, and with the fact that nearly 160 Members of this House have signed an early-day motion broadly supporting the Lords report? Can my hon. Friend mention recommendation (m) in his opening remarks?

Dr. Clark: Of course complementary medicine should not be ignored. We mentioned it in our report, as my


hon. Friend rightly says, and I would continue to support the need for research into complementary medicine, but I believe that our key priority at this stage is to find money for more traditional research, which is likely to have a greater payback in terms of cancer treatment. By that I do not mean that complementary medicines should be excluded. The research should continue in parallel with the traditional research to which the report principally refers.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman spoke about traditional research, and mentioned the fact that tributes were paid abroad to the research that was taking place in this country. May I press him and encourage him in his campaign to get more money into that research, bearing in mind the fact that at least £25 million will be needed in Northern Ireland alone—in an excellent department under Professor Johnston—and that that need is replicated all over the United Kingdom?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right. At the end of my few remarks I shall discuss the need for more money. We recognise in our report the excellent work that is being done in Belfast, and Northern Ireland in general. We took evidence from people from the Province, and one of our last witness sessions—one of our larger sessions—gave us the opportunity to hear people who were recovering from cancer, who had travelled from Northern Ireland to tell us about the excellence of the service there.
Not only was it right that the organisations that we visited abroad should pay tribute to cancer research in this country, but that we as a Committee paid tribute to the cancer professionals, the cancer charities and all those associated with cancer care in this country. We are grateful for the willing help that we have obtained in preparing our report—from the Committee's own advisers, from the 30 witnesses who came to see us and from the host of institutions that we visited, in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. We received 106 written submissions, all of which were carefully scrutinised, and all of which were very valuable in helping us to prepare our report.
I mentioned that we had one witness session at the end to which we invited 20 witnesses, some of whom came from Northern Ireland to tell us of their experience of cancer. We lifted that idea from what we saw when we visited the United States Congress, where we attended a session at which members of the public were invited to speak for no more than five minutes to present their views on an issue. We held a similar session in this Parliament, at which we heard 20 witnesses in two hours. Each person was allowed five minutes to express their point of view. They came along with some trepidation, never having given evidence to a Select Committee. We received them in as friendly a way as we could and listened to their points of view, which we have taken into account in our report.
I commend to other Select Committees the idea of holding a witness session that members of the public may apply to attend to give evidence. Twenty are selected and can present their individual, and sometimes lonely, point of view to a Select Committee of the House.
It was right to call our report "A Fresh Look". There have been changes to the way in which the services are delivered. A national cancer director has been appointed, and the two largest cancer research charities are now willing to work together.
What was it, then, that triggered our report? Many factors did so, some of which I have mentioned. Comparisons have been draw between the mortality and survival rates in this country and those in other parts of the world, especially north America and Europe. It is difficult to draw definitive comparisons, but we found that some of our mortality and survival rates were not as good as they could be compared with those in other countries in the developed western world, particularly in north America. Although the survival rates for cancers overall have steadily improved in this country, there has been little or no improvement in the survival rates for cancers of the lung or the prostate.
Our report is comprehensive, as is the Government response, dated November 2000. Many issues were highlighted and discussed in our report, and other members of the Select Committee present this afternoon will wish to raise many others. I shall, therefore, quickly confine myself to dealing with three topics in the report—epidemiological and public health research issues; Government funding, as I promised the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth); and the national cancer research institute.
On epidemiology, cancer registration is an invaluable tool in the fight against cancer, yet the organisation of records is haphazard—probably because of historical accident, rather than by design—and needs to be improved if we are to get the most of our those records, which can be valuable in fighting cancer. If we are to fight cancer effectively, it is always helpful to know where, in which age group and in relation to which type of life style cancers occur. The Government are aware that data collection may be hindered by the Data Protection Act 1998.
In our report, we recommended:
The Government should introduce legislation to make registration of cancer a legal requirement, both to ensure completeness of the cancer registry data and to ensure access to those data for legitimate purposes.
I believe that the Government have sympathy with that point of view, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on that matter and what she and the Government might do about it.
On Government funding, in the United Kingdom, for every pound spent by the Government, £2 is spent by charities. However, in north America, for every pound spent by charities, £2 is spent by Government. In the United Kingdom, because of the public's generosity to cancer charities, it is possible that the Government have, to some extent, been let off the hook. That is no longer acceptable. The Government should view public giving not as an excuse to minimise their own contribution, but as showing the public's earnest determination to improve the situation. The Government should recognise the fact that the public want to improve the situation, and match— and preferably double—charitable giving.
In paragraph 102 and 103 on page 16 of their response, the Government give an encouraging reply. They say:
The UK Government expenditure on cancer research is inevitably a smaller proportion of total expenditure from all sources than in many countries where a tradition of popular support for cancer research is less evident.


Nonetheless, the Government accepts the Committee's basic premise, and supports the case for increased investment in order to redress years of under-funding, to make the most of exciting new opportunities.
That is a generous Government response to the criticism that we made, but there is still a need for delivery in due course.
The day before the press conference on our report, the Government announced an extra £200 million for cancer research. I am sure that, in winding up the debate, the Minister will recap on all the initiatives that the Government have undertaken and all the new money that they plan to make available.
Finally, we proposed a national cancer research institute to co-ordinate cancer research in the United Kingdom and cancer research funding. On 27 September 2000 the Government responded positively with the announcement in the NHS cancer plan of their intention to come forward with definitive proposals for such a research institute, broadly along the lines that we had proposed. Page 20, paragraph 117 of the Government reply 117 sets that out. We are grateful to the Government for that response and look forward to seeing the benefits of implementing those proposals in due course.
Although we are debating cancer from our adversarial positions in this House, cancer is not a political topic. It is a human problem of national and, indeed, international importance and dimensions. The alleviation of suffering, the treatment of patients and the cures for the disease are also national and international responsibilities. We on the Science and Technology Select Committee have tried to present a fair, comprehensive and helpful report. The Government's response was appreciative and encouraging. I believe that the Government are ready to acknowledge that there is still a lot to do, and we wish them well in their endeavours.

Dr. Ashok Kumar: As a member of the Science and Technology Committee I start by paying tribute to our Chairman, who co-ordinated the work and ensured that we all behaved cordially and made significant progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) was the prime mover and the idea was his brainchild. We should, therefore, record, that the agenda was set by him.
As the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) said, the debate is essential and we need a fresh look at cancer research in the United Kingdom. I agree that what the Government have done and the Secretary of State's announcements have given a boost to cancer treatment. That boost fits perfectly with the national plan for the NHS. The NHS is the greatest achievement of Labour Members. We recognise that the health plan fits in with the Government's programme for the 21st century.
As the hon. Gentleman said, cancer is one of the great scourges of our time. It is a disease that knows no boundaries—boundaries of country, class, gender or race. The prevalence of cancer means that one person in four will at some time be diagnosed as suffering from a cancerous condition and a third of all those here will die from that condition.
As anyone who has had a close family relative with cancer knows, the sheer malignancy can infect the entire household emotionally. I know that only too well myself

as my aunt died from breast cancer in 1983. In a close-knit, Asian family where ties of affinity are great, it hit me hard personally and caused a lot of pain and heartache. I saw at first hand what a deadly disease cancer was. My aunt was only 52. She was effectively robbed of her young life. She was a happy, lively woman and I adored her. She faced this dreadful disease with dignity and courage. She was given all the support of her doctors, nurses and hospital staff and, of course, of her family— her nearest and dearest.
The challenge that we face is to eradicate the conditions that help to foster cancer. Society can then begin to make positive steps towards the better treatment and analysis of the cancers that still occur.
At this point, I want to highlight some of the Committee's findings and to place them in the context of the work being carried out on cancer research, treatment and prevention, from which my constituents could benefit. The report makes 38 good recommendations. I want to focus on only a few of them, specifically those in paragraphs 119 and 143 of the report, relating to the need for patient involvement and the need to spread cancer research across the United Kingdom in a new network of centres of excellence.
Research is being carried out into the causes and the nature of cancer and can be fertilised by other research being carried out in related fields, notably the work being carried out on the human genome project. Research into drug discovery and design is also taking place, as is translational research that seeks to transfer the findings of interdisciplinary teams of scientific workers into treatment regimes. Such work is based on clinical trials and their evaluation. Research is also being carried out into improving patients' quality of life. It is crucial that such work is seen as cross-disciplinary and cross-frontier, and that everyone involved, in whatever sector, is able to appreciate how his or her work can be seen to contribute to the over-arching cause: the eradication and overcoming of cancer.
There are many strands to the research work. The Medical Research Council, in giving evidence to the Committee, stated that such strands
can be pursued and shared simultaneously.
It is crucial that all the agencies involved in this battle see their work as complementary and not competitive. The national health service is the key agency in this country, but there must be parity of esteem between consultants and specialists working for the national health service and scientists working in an academic setting or in drug company laboratories.
Specialists working in those fields must, likewise, pay heed to the work of those dedicated people who manage national and local cancer charities. Charities fund much research work at local and national levels, as the hon. Member for Rayleigh mentioned. All those engaged in research must be conscious of the efforts of people working at the sharp end of the treatment process: the consultant oncologists, the nursing staff, professionals allied to medicine, radiographers and voluntary workers from the various cancer relief groups.
Those involved in research must, above all, have empathy with cancer sufferers and patients, who have a role in combating the disease by volunteering for clinical trials and by playing a full role in supporting research


work carried out in their locality. One of the Committee's most far-reaching recommendations is in paragraph 119, which is that
all Government-supported cancer research committees include patients' representatives as full members and that the Government provides resources to ensure proper training and support for patients' representatives.
I said earlier that the NHS must be the UK pivot. The Committee's most important recommendation, to be found in paragraph 143, is that national health service funding for cancer research should be increased immediately by £100 million, and that this dramatic increase in funding should be spread geographically across the UK so that at least 12 new centres of excellence can be established. Those centres should be at least the equivalent of the Royal Marsden hospital, which Committee members visited.
This call for resources is little more than cancer sufferers and their families deserve. The Committee showed, on the evidence of cross-comparisons, that Government support for advanced research into cancer is low compared with that available in other advanced nations. We come out particularly badly when compared to the United States. Indeed, as paragraph 145 of the report points out, the two UK centres that we visited— Belfast city hospital and the Beatson oncology centre in Glasgow—receive better funding from the US National Cancer Institute than they do from our own Government. That should not be tolerated.
The siting of centres of excellence should be tied to existing facilities, such as new large hospitals and universities with records of excellence in medical research and training, and to areas where there are specific incidence of cancer. My area of Teesside should be considered. It has hospitals and university expertise at the university of Teesside and the university of Durham's Teesside campus, which is located in Stockton. The simple reason why such a centre should be situated there is that we are unfortunate in having one of the highest incidence of cancer in the country.
Specialists from the South Cleveland hospital, which is managed by the South Tees acute hospitals NHS trust and is the cancer centre for Teesside, told me that they support, from a local perspective, the sentiments of many of the report's conclusions. Oncologists in particular are optimistic. Mr. Peter Dunlop, the clinical director of radiotherapy and oncology, and a cancer specialist at the hospital, told me:
Research and development and education are vital elements involved in running an effective cancer service … Stimulate and advance local academic and research training activity and you will get quality outcomes for patients … Many of these recommendations for enhancing the UK cancer research resource base in the UK are fully supported.
However, Dr. Dunlop gave a serious warning. He said:
I still believe that difficulties lie ahead. Recruitment of specialist staff will be needed across many disciplines, particularly those suffering the worst workforce planning blight ever … We are still short of nurses, we have difficulty in recruiting therapy radiographers, medical physics and technical staff, whilst other specialisms such as clinical oncology … are entering a barren period.
In that context, Dr. Dunlop explained that he is one of only 340 clinical oncologists in England and Wales. On average, he sees two and a half times the number of new

cancer patients that are seen by his equivalent in any other developed country. He thinks that at least 700 more consultants in clinical oncology are needed to meet European standards at a time when stress levels among staff are leading to an even higher number of people taking early retirement. Dr. Dunlop's warning is very simple: we must proceed with many of the improvements suggested in the report, but there must be full cross-collaboration, and we must not raise expectations unduly.
It is not only consultants who welcome aspects of the report. Another local leading cancer fighter, Dr. Pat Keane, director of the local Cancer Care Alliance at Middlesbrough general hospital, told me:
We would welcome the opportunity to increase our contribution in cancer research, both locally and nationally, to the proposals outlined within the report … Unfortunately the Teesside area has some of the highest incidence of deaths from cancer, particularly for lung … cancer, in the U.K … We are very keen to increase resources to support local clinical staff in matching their excellent clinical work with a higher involvement in both clinical trials and ongoing research associated with the quality of life of people with cancer.
That is the voice of the people at the sharp end who, in general, support the report's proposals. However, I acknowledge their view that simply considering the possibility of establishing new centres of research excellence without looking in more depth at the staffing of the centres is not enough. We need to consider the flow of research graduates from our universities and to tie in good links between research, clinical practice and the work of the pharmaceutical industry. We also need to use the national plan for cancer to train, recruit and retain more specialists. I know that the Minister recognises that need. There needs to be a proper dialogue with academia and industry so that everyone pulls together to ensure that the ultimate beneficiaries—cancer sufferers and their families—receive the treatment and the quality of life that they deserve.
I believe that this is an excellent report, though I am bound to say that because I was involved in it. It points out a way forward for the radical overhaul and improvement of UK research centres. I know that the Minister will respond positively and I look forward to a day when many more announcements will be made on the back of the work that we have done.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) and his Select Committee for their outstanding report. I served on the Science and Technology Committee almost 30 years ago, but do not remember any of our reports offering such a wide range of potential benefits to the community as that which is before the House.
I shall point out how the admirable recommendations of the Select Committee relate to the work of Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood, in my constituency, which is one of the premier cancer treatment and research centres in the south of England and, indeed, the whole country. Recommendation (e) states:
We recommend that the Government and the National Screening Committee evaluate high speed and precise techniques with a view to commencing large-scale trials for CT cancer screening. This would require the NHS to purchase state-of-the-art diagnostic equipment.


Mount Vernon is pre-eminent in that field. Recommendation (g) states:
We recommend that the Government address the service problems in the delivery of radiotherapy and actively encourage research into radiotherapy.
Mount Vernon hospital has worked in this field since the second world war.
Recommendation (n) states:
We believe that cancer care networks should also provide an essential resource for clinical research and that research based on cancer networks should be given more emphasis than was evident in the Calman-Hine report itself. Clinical research should be an explicit part of the remit of both cancer centres and their associated units.
This is precisely what Mount Vernon is all about—the co-ordination and integration of medical treatment with cancer research. Recommendation (z) states:
There is widespread agreement that the poor state of the infrastructure for cancer treatment and research in the NHS is a serious barrier to clinical research. The Government must act quickly to address this through investment in the necessary staff, training, equipment and buildings.
Mount Vernon's work is second to none and the intellectual quality of all who work there is outstanding, but the fabric of many of its buildings is declining and needs to be addressed.
Last, but not least, recommendation (oo) states:
We recommend that annual NHS R and D funding for cancer research support be increased by £100 million immediately. This extra funding should be spread across the UK to ensure that approximately twelve large centres of cancer research excellence are developed, capable of delivering a volume of clinical research similar to or greater than that currently being delivered at the Royal Marsden Hospital.
Mount Vernon is in the Royal Marsden hospital league already, but it needs more money. Its research is largely supported by extremely generous donations, but the Government can and should do more.
Mount Vernon was established in 1930 as a cancer hospital, having begun operation before the first world war, and it quickly established a reputation in surgery and radiotherapy. The Radium Institute, which was originally established in central London in 1911, moved entirely to Mount Vernon in 1939. The radiotherapy department of the Middlesex hospital became established at Mount Vernon during the war. With the establishment of the national health service, a centre for radiotherapy for the north-west Thames region was established at Mount Vernon under the direction of Professor Sir Brian Windeyer.
To general medicine and surgery—well established on the site since the war—was added the centre for plastic surgery in 1952. Hon. Members are aware that in many cases, plastic surgery is an essential element in cancer treatment and rehabilitation. Sad to say, it is planned that the plastic surgery unit at Mount Vernon might be moved away from the site to Northwick Park in the not too distant future. I regret the move and have resisted it, but it does not mean that the excellent work of the cancer centre cannot continue.
The Gray laboratory was established in 1957 on the Mount Vernon site by the British Empire Cancer Campaign, now the Cancer Research Campaign. It was initially a unit for radiobiological research, but after the death of its first director, Dr. Gray, it was called the Gray laboratory and soon gained a premier position in research

in its field. Now responsible to the Gray laboratory cancer research trust, with a staff of almost 100, it continues to play a leading role in radiation and tumour biology. The work performed in collaboration with the clinical oncologists of the cancer centre has received widespread international recognition. In many areas of research, the laboratory is ahead of the field worldwide.
In 1967, the Marie Curie hospital—established in 1926 in Hampstead for the care of women with cancer—was transferred to the Mount Vernon site and became part of the cancer centre. In 1977, Michael Sobell house, a hospice for terminal patients, was built adjacent to the site and later expanded to give out-patient as well as in-patient services.
The cancer centre at Mount Vernon is long established as a regional centre caring for a population of 1.8 million living in Hertfordshire, south Bedfordshire, adjacent areas of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, and the suburbs of north-west London. Sixteen consultant medical staff visit 15 general hospitals in the area, where patients with cancer are initially seen and screened. Patients who are to receive radiotherapy or intensive chemotherapy go on to attend the cancer centre at Mount Vernon for their treatment, and return closer to home for follow-up treatment.
At Mount Vernon, about 4,200 new patients a year with cancer receive treatment by radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy. The centre currently has five linear accelerators for radiotherapy, but work is proceeding on two further accelerator housings, which should be installed this year, bringing the total number of high energy machines to seven. With the new building which is being constructed, a new treatment simulator is to be added to the two at present in action, and there will be an extension of the research facilities of the Marie Curie research wing.
There are 65 in-patient beds in three wards, together with a unit for high-dose chemotherapy. Complementing in-patient facilities is a hostel, a CHART—continuous hyperfactionated accelerated radiotherapy—lodge, which was constructed in 1990. It contains comfortable hotel rooms, which are extremely useful for patients undergoing chemotherapy or for their relatives to stay nearby.
The Paul Strickland scanner centre was opened in 1985 and has been extended on three occasions. The centre is supported by voluntary donation and is now equipped with a spiral computed tomography, two magnetic resonance imaging units and a positron emission tomography scanner. That equipment provides an excellent service for the radiological investigation of patients attending the centre, facilitating diagnosis, treatment planning and the assessment of response. During 2001, a cyclotron will be built in collaboration with industry, so as to allow further advance in the care and research that the PET has facilitated.
I must inform the House that a most imaginative scheme, the Lynda Jackson Macmillan centre, was opened in 1993 to provide support and information to cancer patients being treated at the Mount Vernon cancer centre and to the area served by it. Approximately 4,000 patients per annum use the service, and a psychological research team has undertaken several studies which show improvement in the quality of patients' lives and demonstrate that the centre is instrumental in giving them


and their families invaluable support. The centre has recently gained an NHS beacon award, which is a Government recognition of high-quality cancer care.
The cancer centre provides comprehensive care in the treatment of patients with cancer. There are special groups concerned with breast cancer; cancer of the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract; gynaecological cancer; urological cancer; germ cell tumours; head, neck and lung cancer; and haematological malignancies, including myeloma and lymphomas. A traditional strength of the centre is close integration of clinical care and research, which is at the heart of the Select Committee's recommendations. The translation of laboratory advances into clinical practice has long been a feature of the work at Mount Vernon, which is built on the strong links with the Gray laboratory.
The Cancer Research Campaign's tumour biology and radiation therapy group is sited in the Marie Curie research wing at the cancer centre. Professor Saunders, Dr. Hoskin and Dr. Makris have established an international reputation for its work on the physiology of tumours and the importance of their oxygen supply, together with programming radiotherapy to improve tumour responses and decrease the changes in normal tissues. The clinical trials group at the centre, under the direction of Dr. Rustin, has established an international reputation for its work in ovarian cancer. It is also engaged in original work looking at vaso-active drugs that shrink tumours by attacking their blood supply. A new clinical research group headed by Dr. Rob Glynne-Jones has been established to investigate the role of combination chemotherapy in the treatment of intestinal cancer.
The cancer centre at Mount Vernon plays a prominent role in the pan-London training scheme for doctors training in clinical oncology. Again, the Select Committee is adamant that we need to do more to train more specialists in that field. There are 24 junior medical staff at the cancer centre, whose registrars are trained in clinical oncology and medical oncology. Seventy nurses, including clinical nurse specialists and nurse practitioners, are responsible for the care of the patients on the ward, while 40 therapy radiographers operate and treat patients on the treatment machines. Postgraduate training for nurses and radiographers is continued at the centre, and they are encouraged to take part in research projects. Six clinical physicists and two radiographers are responsible for patient planning, together with the running of machines, quality assurance and the commissioning of new equipment.
There are difficulties at present. Organisational changes have been made and medical and surgical services have been shifted away from the Mount Vernon site. There has been a change in ownership of the site as a whole, which comes under Hillingdon health authority, whereas regional specialist services in cancer, burns and plastics are the responsibility of the eastern region to the north of the hospital. That dichotomy does not make administrative sense. It is accepted that the everyday working of the cancer centre has been made more complicated by those transfers.
As a consequence, the cancer centre is now a lodger in its own home. Maintenance standards of property have fallen and it is often difficult to get improvements to basic support services without making an enormous effort.
Nevertheless, it is remarkable that, despite all those problems, the number of patients treated at the Mount Vernon cancer centre, continues to rise. The standard of care continues to improve, while morale and staffing levels have been maintained. The centre's popularity among the patients attending remains high, and its national and international reputation continues to rise. Those performing clinical research, together with their colleagues in laboratory science, have performed well. The work of established research groups has been assessed by teams of doctors and experts from the United Kingdom and overseas and has always been given a high rating.
Funding has been maintained and, in some cases, increased. New proposals for research have a high success rate. I am convinced that the Select Committee proposals, which I wholeheartedly applaud, can only help the admirable work of the Mount Vernon cancer centre and its related research institutes.

Dr. Ian Gibson: For me, the inquiry was precipitated by two matters. First, cancer survival rates in the United Kingdom are atrocious when compared with those in other countries, especially in Europe, and they fall far short of those in the United States. That is true for breast, lung and colon cancers; indeed, it is true for 10 major cancers suffered by men and women.
Secondly, basic biomedical research into cancer in the United Kingdom is world class, yet the major discoveries are not being translated into clinical practice. There is little political recognition of that, and a serious lack of noise from many cancer interest groups. It took 26 years from the initial laboratory work to develop the drugs that we use to treat breast cancer today. That is far too long. We need a different infrastructure to make sure that that does not happen again.
The question is not whether the Government have tried to tackle cancer—they certainly have—but whether they will solve the problems that I described. Will the many recent announcements, including the national cancer plan and increased investment, correct the position whereby cancer survival rates in the United States are three times greater than those in the United Kingdom? Analysis of the statistics clearly shows that five-year survival rates for the major cancers are better in most European countries than in the United Kingdom. Let us put that in perspective: approximately 10,000 deaths per annum could be avoided if we attained the average European survival rates. Two thousand of those deaths are from breast cancer.
There are major geographical variations in the incidence of colon cancer in this country. High incidence rates are associated with economic deprivation and poverty. I acclaim the Government's attitude towards tackling poverty because health will benefit from that. We could save 2,500 lives a year through equality of diagnosis, treatment and patient care throughout the country. For major cancers, the 10-year survival rate for the richest sector of our society is better than the five-year survival rate for the poorest. We cannot justify that, and we cannot sleep until we correct that aberration.
I appreciate that basic scientific and medical research has received a large injection of money from the Government for equipment, repairing, for example,


university laboratories and bringing the boys—and, hopefully, the girls—back home from their rich, luxury laboratories in the United States. However, is it enough? I agree with some other speakers who doubt whether it is enough at this stage.
It takes time to train clinical oncologists, thoracic cancer surgeons, histopathologists, radiographers, biochemists and physics technicians. I welcome the Government's injection of massive sums into the pay packets of such people in the past 48 hours. They are essential for providing cancer screening in this country. The Government's action constitutes a major political advance. Many of us acclaim it, and we will be proud to talk to the unions who represent those professions and the Institute of Biomedical Science, which campaigned for that tremendous leap forward. Many graduates will welcome the chance to enter those professions because we have addressed the pay problem and begun to consider the career structure.
I say to the Government, "Yes, great, more money has been put in, but we need even more." We can improve our basic research and cancer services even more. We can carry out clinical trials, which are shown to benefit patients, if we provide more money. I shall say more about the way in which we could do that. A local consultant told me last week that Culyer money was available to fund trials co-ordinators. The local trust refused the money and charity money had to be found to enable the trials to happen. I could repeat many such anecdotal stories of available money that does not get to the place where it counts.
We may need to think in the same way as we did for education. Perhaps we should give a pot of money directly to the relevant cancer network, unit or centre so that the practitioners can use it to effect improvements.
In order to establish a challenging service, we need to develop not a virtual cancer institute but a real one: a small centre, not a huge, rambling building as in Washington. It should co-ordinate and develop a national strategy for all aspects of the cancer journey and cancer care. That must be supported by a national cancer Act, as in the United States. The Government side-stepped that issue in their reply, so I look forward to the Minister saying something about that now.
A national cancer Act would make the matter independent of which party was in Government. The question whether we are putting enough money and resources into cancer research would have to be reviewed every year. That is a challenge for this century, and one that we could take up.
It is a tremendous advance that the Government have acknowledged the need for a national cancer research institute. The silence on that issue has been deafening. It is a major political contribution to the cancer arena and the national health service, and I look forward to hearing more about it. A national cancer institute could co-ordinate work on a tobacco policy, on diet and cancer, on the new human genome project and the outcomes of that, and the knowledge that we will have. It would be a real step forward to have an institute where people could talk about cancer and develop a national strategy and priorities.
Many consultants and practitioners would welcome a national institute. They have campaigned for such a body for some time.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I, too, welcome the Government's acceptance of our Committee's recommendation on the establishment of a national cancer research institute. How would my hon. Friend tie the funders, especially the charities, into the strategy of such an institute?

Dr. Gibson: I would envisage a co-ordinated policy. A council could sit down with the national cancer research institute and combine their knowledge with that of all the other groups—consultants, charities and patients' groups. We should co-ordinate and combine, rather than continue the fragmentation that has beset the cancer challenge year after year.
To get decisions on cancer services and research requires the involvement of 46 groups and individuals. They all have acronyms and they have an input in decisions about funding. There are about 600 cancer charities in this country, and that cannot be right. I welcome the fact that the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign have got their trustees together to talk about merger, which cannot come soon enough. The old rivalries must be dispelled, and we must have a unitary policy. We could take a leaf out of the Jubilee 2000 group's book. In a short time, it has affected the politics of world debt and how to handle it. That is a message for cancer charities.
The two-week waiting list proposal is superb, but we must ensure that at the end of that people do not have to wait weeks or months for a CT scanner and a linear accelerator. The whole process can be speeded up. I know that the Minister has many examples of that happening, and we need to make it happen across the country.
The issue is not just about cutting bureaucracy, but about getting trained staff and equipment together to ensure that the journey is much quicker for our people. We must carry out research into many areas of radiotherapy, IMRT and Conformal, because much research has led up a blind ally. That is the challenge of cancer research. There will be new technologies and new techniques, and we need a national strategy that can be developed locally in the various centres.
Although research and infrastructure are crucial to the task of defeating cancer, much can be done more immediately to improve the quality of life of people living with cancer. The increasing use of concepts such as "living with cancer" has shown how, in many cases, cancer can become a chronic long-term condition that responds well to treatment, with a good prospect of survival. Even when the survival prospects are less good, the quality of life of people undergoing treatment can be far greater than could have been envisaged a few years ago. Much research needs to be carried out in that area on quality care, drugs and so on.
Improving the quality of life for patients and coping with the side effects of treatment are just as important as the treatment of the disease itself, and in some cases more important. As the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) said, many people who visited the Committee called for research into improving the quality of life, yet research into service provision for all aspects of supportive care is


accorded far less priority for funding and attracts far less academic interest. We have a duty to all who are living with cancer to ensure that the maximum effort is made to give them the best possible support, and to enable them to enjoy as much independence and as good a life as can be provided.
I was proud to be associated with the inquiry, with the members of the Select Committee and with the disciplined way in which some of us were made to respond in certain circumstances. I give credit to our Chairman for ensuring that, when excitement got the better of us, we managed to contain our enthusiasm.
There was a very unco-ordinated campaign, involving many different groups, to put pressure on the Government to show the political will that they are showing now. We have turned a corner, in that the Government now recognise the need to act, but there is never a time for us to rest on our laurels: we must deliver better co-ordination and teamwork between all the groups involved in cancer care.
What we have learned about cancer treatment could, I think, be applied to the treatment of mental health and heart disease. We are developing important structures. In the next few years, our message should be "teamwork, co-ordination, and partnership among industry, patient groups, cancer charities and Government". That will enable us to rise in the league tables and, I am sure, to be at the top in no time. Our people will receive the best treatment that is available to those elsewhere in the world.
The challenge is there, and the Government are taking up the cudgels. We must now give them all possible support in order to ensure that there is no rest, and that we continue to forge ahead in developing even better standards.

Dr. Peter Brand: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on an excellent report, which is also timely. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, cancer is not all about misery now; it is also about hope.
I remember that, 30 years ago, childhood leukaemias involved nasty treatment and extremely poor outcomes. People indulged in "heroic" surgery, in which the patient was the victim and the surgeon was thought to be the hero. We have moved a long way since those days, and I welcome the Government's response to the Committee's excellent report, but there are still some bits missing.
As the introduction to the report helpfully explains, the steps that we can take in cancer treatment and research depend largely on a fundamental understanding of the cancer process. We still do not know why some cells start to behave aberrantly; nor do we know why some people manage to get rid of the aberrant cells, while others do not. However, I think that we are near to finding answers to some of those fundamental questions, and that we should not forget the importance of basic research. I certainly approve of the concept of a national cancer centre, benefiting from international collaboration.
The report also deals with research in treatment. The last Government did well in commissioning the Calman-Hine report, but did abysmally in terms of its implementation. It was ridiculous to allow the market in

health care to determine where people should have their cancer centres. It was ludicrous not to draw up a national, or even regional, strategy determining where radiotherapy services or linear accelerators should be. I am glad that the planning is now gaining some semblance of order, but I am disappointed that there is not a stronger regional input in decisions about where such services are to be.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke eloquently in support of his local unit. It is a unit of great excellence, but I sometimes doubt whether having two or three adjoining units of great excellence is the best way of serving the country. I do not deny that we have some excellent centres, but I also feel that one of the most striking aspects of outcomes is the postcode lottery. Outcomes depend on where people live, and where they can be referred to.
May I be critical of the Government? The new system of out of area treatment as opposed to extra-contractual referrals is having a dramatic impact on referral patterns, patient choice and patients' ability to get to units that may be at the leading edge of a particular treatment regime for a particular cancer, which could not have been foreseen by the health authority or trust. So arrangements cannot always be easily made.
We can refer out of area, but there will be no obligation on the people to whom we refer to accept that referral if they cannot guarantee getting the resources to go with the treatment. The OAT scheme must be looked at. We are almost working against the rules to make things happen. That cannot be in either the patient's or the clinician's interest.
I echo the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) in congratulating the Government on recognising the tremendous value of laboratory scientists and pathologists. I remember the front page of a local paper having a nice picture of a man in a white coat holding a chicken. He was a qualified laboratory technician with a science degree who had stopped being a laboratory technician and become a chicken sexer, which brought in £2,000 more a year. That is ridiculous. I am glad that we are taking steps to correct that.
If we are going to get something out of the system other than just treading water and enormous pressure, all the people involved with research, whether it be fundamental research or research in treatment, require thinking time and deliberation time, which in today's clinical practice is often missing. That is one of the reasons perhaps why trusts are putting such an enormous premium on research being done within the trust. It is costing their clinicians' time and their scientific staff's time to an extent that is becoming unreasonable.

Mr. Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. Does he agree that the figures that the Prime Minister has used to suggest that the Government will match voluntary sector funding are deeply suspect, given that much of that funding is being used within mixed clinical and research situations in the NHS and is liable to be diverted in the way the hon. Gentleman has suggested?

Dr. Brand: I am not as suspicious or as cynical as the hon. Gentleman, but we perhaps take a different approach to these matters. It is difficult to cost the two. My plea is that, where clinicians are working in an area where there


is active research, that should be recognised in their work load and their departments should be adequately staffed to cope with some of the work that needs to be done.
I pick up two or three points that may seem minor in relation to the report but are important and practical. We now have to refer all research to research and ethical committees in a correct way, but we have not gone far enough in streamlining the system when the research involves more than one health authority area. The trading standards people have a rather better system. A home trading standards authority approves a particular product and that recognition is given nationally. We need to be a little more streamlined in sorting that out.
No one likes unnecessary animal research, but there is no doubt that animal research has made, and will continue to make for the foreseeable future, a big contribution to our understanding of the causes and treatment of cancers, among other things. The current process where one has to go through not only a Home Office procedure but a medical research and ethics committee is unduly cumbersome, very long and not in the interests of either the researchers or the animals that we are thinking about. It distorts and lengthens a process that should be rigorous, but consistent.
It is important that newer treatment be researched. We do not use the opportunities that the NHS provides. We probably have a unique system world wide in having records that are complete in a vertical sense—from primary care through secondary care to tertiary care. When looking at new treatment, we do not use adequately the enormous resource that an integrated health service provides.
I ask the Minister to examine the effect of the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on the introduction of new drugs and on research. There is some evidence that clinicians and funding health authorities are reluctant to accept the introduction of a new treatment because it has not been considered by NICE and, indeed, has not been referred to NICE yet. NICE should either be resourced to the extent that all new treatments can be looked at quickly, or it should be made clear to health authorities that the fact that NICE has not considered a drug is not an excuse for not using it.
That was the evidence with some of the new cancer drugs. Health authorities used the existence of NICE not to make a drug available. That will stultify the excellent scope for doing post-marketing and population research.
A number of expert hon. Members are keen to contribute to the debate. I again echo what the hon. Member for Norwich, North said. I was taken by his comparison of mental health services with the approach to cancer services. Cancer is an emotive subject, but it is not a unique disease. Other diseases are just as ghastly and a number of diseases are more deadly than some of the cancers. There is a wide spread, as the report points out.
I welcome the focus on cancer services in the report, but I hope that, whatever lesson is drawn from the report, from the Government action and from the audit of the action on how to arrange the inter-relationship between primary care, secondary care and tertiary care, the experience will be reflected in how we deal with some of the other illnesses and diseases that we are all keen to tackle.

Dr. Lynne Jones: As many other hon. Members wish to speak and time is short, I will confine my remarks to just two main points.
I welcome the Government response to the Select Committee's report. I welcome in particular their recognition of many of the points that we have made in the NHS cancer plan. That plan acknowledges, as the Select Committee does, that there is a serious shortage of therapists and clinicians to treat patients who are suffering from cancer. The Government have promised that the process of improvement will begin immediately, provided that the NHS can recruit the staff that it needs, and that the necessary reforms are put in place. The aim is that, by 2008, access to treatment for all types of cancer will compare with the best in Europe.
Members of the Select Committee welcome and support that aim, but we must make the best use of resources available in the meantime, and especially of staffing resources. I want to highlight some work being done in Birmingham to encourage collaboration between different specialties to ensure that they work together effectively.
The joint approach to cancer outcomes in Birmingham project—JACOB—is greatly improving collaboration between different specialties. It is hoped that, by April this year, all projects will hit the target for first treatment within two months from urgent GP referral. That is the target that the Government have determined must be reached nationally by 2005. The work done by projects in Birmingham and elsewhere is putting us on course to reach it.
As an example of what is being achieved, in Birmingham the waiting time for prostatic biopsy has been cut from 10 weeks to two. I therefore commend the Government on the work that they are encouraging within the NHS. It is definitely leading to a substantial improvement in waiting times for treatment and therapy.
The other main point on which I want to focus is cancer registration. It is easy to underestimate the importance of cancer registration for cancer treatment and research. The Committee's inquiry identified serious concerns about the impact of the Data Protection Act 1998 on researchers' ability to gather and process complete data. Local interpretations of the legislation have already led to anomalies in cancer registration practice. For example, the Institute of Cancer Research told the Committee that enforcement of the 1998 Act had already held up its research into mesothelioma.
The Committee recommended that, as a matter of urgency, the advisory group on patient confidentiality should address the problems posed by the 1998 Act for the registration of cancer. The Committee recommended also that the Government should introduce legislation to make the registration of cancer a legal requirement, to ensure the completeness of cancer registry data and to ensure access to those data for legitimate research purposes.
That recommendation has been supported, through early-day motion 138, by 115 hon. Members, who also expressed concern about the guidance issued by the General Medical Council. The council suggested that doctors should no longer pass on the names of patients to the national cancer registry. In their response, the Government stated that they were determined to secure


the future of cancer registration and that they would take the necessary action to do so. They also said that they would be setting out their plans to strengthen cancer registries, taking into account the review carried out by Professor Charles Gillis.

Dr. Brand: Does the hon. Lady agree that the GMC said that doctors should not pass on a patient's name if that patient expressly objected? It is a matter of patient consent.

Dr. Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I was trying to rush through the point, but the Committee was told time and again that it would be very difficult to get the express permission of patients. That is why we recommended that patient confidentiality should not necessarily apply in the case of cancer registration.
Local interpretations of the legislation are causing considerable problems. When they responded to our report, the Government said that they would respond early this year to the review being carried out by Professor Gillis. However, that already represented a shift in time scale from the original promise contained in the NHS plan, which was that a response to the review would be available by autumn last year.
When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will spend some time describing how the Government will deal with that problem. I know that the chief medical officer has written articles in the British Medical Journal emphasising the importance of cancer registration.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I am very pleased to have caught your eye in this very important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on this excellent report. It will make a sizeable and significant contribution to the alleviation of suffering experienced by people with cancer. In addition, the timeliness of the Government's response is helpful.
I want to suggest some alternative resources that may be useful to the Government and to everyone involved in caring for cancer patients. My approach may be a little oblique for some people in mainstream medicine, as I am the long-standing treasurer of the parliamentary group on alternative and complementary medicine. I may not have the length of service in the House of my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh or for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—the latter entered the House in 1970— but I have served as treasurer of that group during three Parliaments.
In that time, there has been a complete change in the approach to some complementary therapies. I want to suggest that the shortage of resources could be alleviated by looking afresh at some of the therapies that are available, and by thinking slightly differently about how they can be used.
When I entered the House in 1987, chiropractic and osteopathy were thought by many doctors to be pretty much off the wall. If they did not get the evil eye, patients who told their doctors that they had been to a chiropractor or osteopath would certainly receive a ticking off.
That has changed. Osteopaths are now regulated by legislation. Passage of the relevant legislation covering osteopaths and chiropractors took place over two Parliaments, and I sat on both the Standing Committees scrutinising the proposals. Disciplines that were once regarded as suspect are now part of mainstream medicine, but there is great scope for that process to be taken further.
In that regard, publication of the Select Committee report, and of the report by the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee on complementary and alternative medicine, has helped the Government tremendously. In addition, an early-day motion supporting that House of Lords report has been signed by nearly 160 hon. Members of various persuasions, some of whom are in the Chamber today.
As I said, I want to focus on resources. The report emphasises the problems of availability—of personnel, drugs, equipment, technicians and communications. Recommendation (c) talks of an "over-stretched service" and of the need for a "fast-track system". Recommendation (f) speaks of the need for an increase in the number of specialist surgeons, and recommendation (g) of "service problems in… delivery". Recommendation (h) talks about drugs "only available to some" and recommendation (i) talks of the need for additional funding for NICE-approved treatments. Recommendation (g) talks about the shortage of key personnel.
There are shortages of key personnel—don't we know it?—but there are other personnel who are not referred to by name in the report but who are available. Recommendation (m) is specifically about complementary and alternative medicine. It says:
We recommend that the Government seeks guidance from NICE on the cost-effectiveness of complementary therapies for cancer care to ensure consistency of provision across the NHS.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh that I differ from him slightly on that recommendation. The need to establish the cost-effectiveness of complementary or alternative medicine is not necessary in many instances. Many therapists offer their services for very little money and some are free. If we can find a way into that pool of available complementary therapists, we could obtain their services for little or nothing. We should not ignore that, because it is important.
As the Government try to tackle the problem of cancer, the additional resources available to them include about 50,000 complementary therapists—homeopaths, herbalists, phytotherapists and traditional Chinese medical practitioners. In addition—perhaps parallel to those therapies—there are about 50,000 healers who channel energy. I have had some experience of their work and seen them working with cancer patients. I know that some hon. Members may feel that the idea of someone making a difference by transmitting energy flow through their hands is off the wall—that is what some hon. Members thought about osteopathy in 1987. However, the use of healers will develop. More and more people are learning to heal and there will be a greater opportunity for its use in the health service.
Some years ago I had the great opportunity of travelling on a lecture tour with Dr. Rosie Daniel. Dr. Daniel ran the Bristol cancer health clinic. Many patients who could not be treated by conventional means or who had received conventional treatment but whose cases were not satisfactorily resolved would call on the clinic for help—


I am sure that that still happens now. Complementary practitioners can often help those to whom doctors have been unable to offer a cure.
One of the ways in which the clinic helped cancer patients was to look at their diet. One of the ways of alleviating the problems of cancer patients is a greater insistence on the need for a carefully controlled diet. The Gerson diet is well known for offering relief to cancer patients. At clinics such as Bristol, a range of therapies are on offer. I hope that the Minister will respond soon to the Lords report and that we can move further towards an integrated health care system. It is to be hoped that it will not only be osteopathy and chiropractic that can come in from the cold, but we will find a much greater use of other disciplines, such as traditional Chinese medicine, homeopathy and aromatherapy. I should like to focus on those three therapies.
I have some experience of traditional Chinese medicine. I have talked at length to representatives from Peking university who are pioneering their brand of traditional medicine in the United Kingdom. They believe that they can help cancer patients in two specific ways. I know that there are many distinguished doctors in the House and they can interrupt if they feel that I am misguiding hon. Members, but I do not think that I am. The first method is by using traditional herbs, which will boost the organs of the body, and the second is by using acupuncture. An experienced acupuncturist can dramatically increase the energy flow to different organs in the body. One aspect of Chinese medicine that I find fascinating is the way that internal organs are linked to different limbs. For example, the kidneys perhaps have some influence on bone repair, and energy can be increased through the kidney meridians. Traditional Chinese medicine has had and will continue to have a considerable success rate with cancer patients. I am suggesting not that it should be used as an alternative but that it could be used to complement other therapies.
Homeopathic remedies are also useful. I will not go into detail now because I am aware that time is short. I have just received a friendly note from a friendly Whip telling me to sit down and shut up. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that I do not need to read it because I know what it says. One does not need to be psychic when my hon. Friend is on the Bench. He has often helped me during my contributions, as all Lord Commissioners do. [Interruption.] Although my hon. Friend is not yet a Lord Commissioner, we look forward to the day when he will be, after we return to government.
Some of the complementary therapies that are classified by the Lords report as needing further research offer a lot to cancer patients. Aromatherapy can offer a great deal of relief. The use of simple oils can alleviate mood and have a beneficial effect, not least in preparing patients for operations.
Following the help from my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, I shall come towards the end of my remarks by saying that there is one other group of people who should be looked at with great care from the point of view of solving cancer problems. The healers or energy specialists—call them what you like—are trained to transfer, through their hands, energy of their own or from some other source. I have looked at healers at work in two prisons in Britain and seen how they can change the mood of dangerous prisoners. I have talked at length with

healers about what they can do for cancer patients. They can provide relief for those who will not make it and perhaps extend their lives, and they can complement the work done by the mainstream profession, particularly after chemotherapy. They can change the mood and, apparently, increase energy levels.
There have been many trials on healing and there are always calls for more. The work of Matthew Manning was studied in great depth. Uri Geller, who is known for using energy to bend spoons, can also use energy to heal. There have been many reports showing that healing is an effective treatment. The Minister might want to take to heart the fact that many groups, including the National Federation of Spiritual Healers, do not charge at all. It is a free service and, when trying to square the circle of funding and resources for cancer care, I hope that the Minister will consider that. I hope that she will also bear it in mind when responding to the Lords report and in her winding-up speech today. I apologise to the Minister for the fact that, sadly, I will not be present for the end of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold is again encouraging me to bring my speech to an end. He may have a word with me later in the Smoking Room—one never knows one's luck with a Whip. Complementary therapy has come a long way in 13 years. That which was right off the wall is now in mainstream use. There are many other disciplines that should be included in mainstream NHS provision, as many of them could help cancer patients. I have highlighted traditional Chinese medicine and the healing movement. I commend those practitioners to the House and hope that better use will be made of their services.

Dr. Desmond Turner: The report is concerned with the rational approach to cancer therapy and research, and that is meat enough for one discussion.
I am very proud to be associated with the report. I think that it is probably one of the most important Select Committee reports produced this Session—if not the most important. That is not simply because of the efforts of the members of the Committee, but because of the gravity and emotional impact of the subject. It is an authoritative and comprehensive report and a great deal of credit for that should go to the special advisers who helped us with it, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. If the Government have the wisdom to accept all our recommendations, they, too, will owe the special advisers a debt of gratitude.
In the very brief time left, I will have to cherry pick. I echo the thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson). We feel very strongly about the importance of a national cancer research institute and the central importance of its role. Although the Government have accepted the notion of such an institute in principle, I do not think that they have quite taken on board the degree to which we see it as essential to get proper co-ordination into the cancer research effort in this country.
We have seen how such co-ordination works in different forms in other countries. It does not have to be a mighty bricks-and-mortar edifice—that is not what we have in mind. We are not seeking to replicate Bethesda. However, the United States, Canada and other countries


have a co-ordinating mechanism—even if they do not call it a national cancer institute—and it pays enormous dividends. It shows, in the long term, in their cancer survival rates, and that is the acid test. We have truly world-class, leading-edge, basic research, yet we have some truly appalling cancer survival rates compared with our neighbours. That gap must be bridged.
We see the national cancer research institute as the lead organisation co-ordinating the whole effort and strategy. We also see it as disbursing the money. I suggest that the amount of money that the Medical Research Council currently disburses for cancer research should be given to the cancer institute. When we took evidence from the MRC, some of us could not help feeling that there was a certain lackadaisical quality in its approach to cancer. We felt that it did not have the commitment to cancer that is really needed.
That is why we come back to a national cancer Act. It would be a political gesture but it would focus the effort on cancer and bind every party in the House to that effort. We have seen the American example, where the grand old party and the Democrats are committed to fighting cancer through their National Cancer Act and have virtually outdone each other to make sure that there are adequate funds. We were very impressed. On our visit to Bethesda, the Government's budget increase for cancer research in America was being discussed. They were in the middle of a five-year programme to double their spending on cancer research. The increase that they were considering and explained to us dwarfed our entire national cancer research budget.
I am not suggesting that we can match American big bucks or even that we should. One thing that British scientists have shown they can do, because they have had to, is to make the most of very limited resources. We have a history of cost-effective research, but that does not mean that we should not put more resources into research. We need to do so urgently because of the decades of under-investment, and we have to do some very fast catching up.
In recent years we have been deprived of taking advantage of certain new research technologies such as gene chip technology because there has not been enough funding available, and that has disadvantaged leading British laboratories. That cannot be allowed to happen in future. We need a commitment not just to match the charities' level of funding, but to do it quickly. It is a matter or urgency, as are other things. Our radiotherapy departments, for instance, have not had modern equipment for decades. Their equipment belongs to the stone age and that has a great impact on outcomes. So we need to act urgently.
We were very impressed, when we visited St. Mary's, to see the operation of a machine called a multi-slice CT scanner. That, in conjunction with therapeutic programmes, is fantastic. It can lead to realistic attempts to treat lung cancer and can revolutionise colon cancer therapy and detection. That involves a lot of such machines, and screening of at-risk groups can lead to a massive advance. The Government are interested in that technology but they still want to conduct research projects. Research has been done—it is all there, published in the literature. We must be prepared to use information that is in the literature, wherever it is.
I congratulate the Government on their wisdom in agreeing with most of our report, but we want them to accept everything in the report because we think that it is right.

Dr. Brian Iddon: In the final few minutes available for Back-Bench contributions, I want to continue that theme. First, I refer to the computerised tomography scanner at St. Mary's hospital. These new machines are made in Britain by Marconi Medical Systems UK Ltd. and cost about £250,000. Marconi told us at St. Mary's that it was willing to help the Government to put those machines in place in the cancer centres.
At present, the machines are being used as diagnostic machines. By the time people walk into St. Mary's with lung cancer, for example, the cancer is far too advanced. The specialist at St. Mary's hospital asked to use the machines as screening instruments. The scanners scan a whole body, tip to toe, in about 15 minutes. Within another 15 minutes, the computer attached to the machine will give a three-dimensional picture of any organ in the body. It was absolutely fascinating for us to walk through the three sections of the colon or both lungs of a patient and observe whether they were clean of polyps and tumours, or observe the size of the cancer and where it was in the lung. Sometimes it blocked a whole lung, so the patient had only one lung. If only that could be done when tumours were small, they could be eliminated without the cancer putting out secondaries all over the body.
The other instrument that we saw in action was at the Royal Marsden hospital at Sutton. When radiotherapy is carried out on various parts of the body—on the neck and head, for example, or on colorectal cancer—healthy as well as cancerous tissue is damaged by the radiation. Irradiation of the neck can result in paralysis and if the rectum is irradiated, incontinence can result—that is not very nice for the patient.
At the Royal Marsden, we saw three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy in action; that allows the operator to shape the zone of radiation to the shape of the tumour. In Finland, we saw intensity-modulated radiotherapy—IMRT—which allows the operator to vary the intensity of the radiation. Those techniques combined can hit the tumour with extremely high doses while avoiding the surrounding tissue. That is extremely useful in killing cancerous tissue.
I make two pleas to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, please put in the money necessary to spread that new instrumentation across the cancer networks. Secondly, it is important that staff be adequately trained; radiotherapists will need retraining and there is in any case a shortage of radiotherapists. We need to train many more people to handle those state-of-the-art machines.

Mr. Philip Hammond: I begin by congratulating the Select Committee on Science and Technology and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), on this excellent report and on the obviously exhaustive inquiries they carried out during its production. It is a testimony to them not only that Members of the House will congratulate them on their work, but that the perhaps far


more knowledgeable body of people with cancer research expertise has congratulated them. The Committee has done a great service to the House.
I pay tribute to all the hon. Members who have spoken during the debate. All but two of them were members of the Committee and had thus contributed to its work. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who gave us a slightly different perspective on some of the issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who eloquently described the centre of excellence at Mount Vernon hospital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh gave a characteristically understated description of the reasons that had driven the Committee to begin its investigation into cancer and cancer research. In fact, the figures produced by the Committee and published in its report are quite horrifying. It is not merely that we do not perform well according to European standards on cancer survival rates; we are at the bottom of the league table, among the newly democratising east European countries such as Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia—way behind our north European neighbours. That clearly shows that something is wrong and that something must be done.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said that he wanted Government spending on cancer research to match that of the voluntary sector. He may have missed the Prime Minister's announcement on 26 September 2000 when the right hon. Gentleman made precisely that pledge; it seemed extremely grandiose at the time. However, the Prime Minister pledged money that the Government had already announced. It amounted to additional spending of only £24 million.
In the context of public spending, Government spending on cancer research is relatively small. I repeat to the Under—Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the concern that I expressed during an intervention on the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand)—that a significant proportion of Government-funded spending on cancer research is allocated to NHS hospitals, where the distinction between research spending and the financing of general overheads and clinical service support is not always clear. We all realise that hospitals are under tremendous pressure, especially as they try to deliver the Government's newer targets for cancer treatments and the times for such treatments. Will the Minister tell us what she intends to do to ensure that the money allocated to hospitals for research is used for that purpose and not for the equally worthy and valuable, but quite different, purpose of day-to-day treatment of patients?
The report makes 48 recommendations. I shall address a few of them specifically and ask the Minister some questions. Recommendation (d) deals with screening. The Opposition have pledged that, if prostate screening has been demonstrated to be effective, we shall introduce it when we are in government. Can the Minister give the House a similar assurance? The Government response to the Committee report notes only that the Medical Research Council is considering a proposal for a prostate screening trial.
We are delighted that the Government are moving towards considering overall time scales—from initial referral to commencement of treatment—as the relevant milestone. I only wish that they would acknowledge that

such time scales are relevant for patients throughout the NHS. The amount of time patients spend on waiting lists is not the key issue if they have already waited a year to get on to a list.
We are slightly surprised, however, that the Government persisted with their two-week target for urgent GP referrals to initial specialist consultation. Those who know much more than I do about such matters question the wisdom of that target. The president of the Royal College of Surgeons, Professor Barry Jackson, said that
clinics are being snowed under with inappropriate referrals for breast cancer … breast surgeons are coping, just, at the moment, but it could be at the expense of other things.
Dr. Joan Austoker, of the Cancer Research Campaign, said that
the two week rule has completely backfired. It has led to a waste of resources, and a waste of specialists time.
Professor Karol Sikora, the former head of the World Health Organisation's cancer programme, said:
New guidelines for urgent referral of patients with cancer are a waste of energy.
I entirely understand that the two-week limit is intended to reassure patients who have been told by their GP that they may have cancer. In fact, 90 per cent. of breast cancer referrals will be found to be clear of the disease. As physical resources are still scarce—although, hopefully, that will ease over time—does that limit really make the best use of them? Would they not be better directed towards speeding up the time between diagnosis and treatment rather then being focused at the front end of the process? I realise that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will review the guidelines in 2002–03, but the problem exists now. Hopefully, by 2002–03 the additional resources will be starting to relieve the problem somewhat.
Are initial figures available to show whether the two-week target for GP referral to consultation is successful for all cancers? Will the Minister do anything about the problem that beset the early stages of the breast cancer pledge? That guarantee applied only to referrals received by the hospital within 24 hours of being made by the GP; hospitals were counted only on their performance in dealing with that particular group of referrals—not on all referrals. From the point of the view of patients, that is quite unacceptable.
Who is actually seen when a referral is made? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that early referral helps, but much more to suggest that the degree of specialisation of the person who sees the patient has a far greater influence on the outcome. In the summer, I asked the Minister a series of questions—ending with one on 27 July, to which I received no answer—about the specialism of consultants who saw patients referred within two weeks. At the time, the Minister told me that it was not possible to distinguish consultants' specialisations from the data. Will she take steps to ensure that we begin to measure and record those specialisations? All the evidence shows that they are a more important determinant of a successful outcome than a simple time scale.
Will the Minister also acknowledge that, as long as initiatives such as the waiting list initiative distort clinical priorities in the national health service, cancer patients, along with all other patients, will suffer? I have in my


hand a letter from the consultant urologist at my local hospital to the chief executive, copied to me, which refers to a particular case. He says:
You were fully aware of three other patients of mine who were admitted for major cancer surgery, only
for the surgery
to be cancelled three times, each within 30 minutes of being called to the theatre. These are but three examples of a long-standing problem. One year ago, I was put under pressure by the management to treat non-urgent, long-waiting patients instead of patients with cancer.
That is happening in hospitals throughout the country. Can the Minister do something about that problem by restoring proper clinical priorities to the national health service to ensure that patients who need cancer treatment do not get pushed out of the queue in order to achieve the Government's political waiting list targets?
The Committee made several recommendations in relation to prescribing and the way that NICE operates. It specifically identified a concern that the mere fact that NICE recommended that a drug be made available did not ensure that it would be made available, and that patients in the United Kingdom were being seriously disadvantaged by the low levels of use of the latest cancer drugs. The Government's response was simply that trusts
will be expected … to promote the rapid uptake of NICE's guidance,
but Cancer Bacup reports that more than 20 per cent. of health authorities are still not following national guidance for the drug treatment of breast and ovarian cancer. What will the Minister do to ensure that, once NICE has approved a drug as appropriate for a certain class of treatment, health authorities make that drug available?
I am not bashing health authorities; we know that some of them labour under very serious financial pressures and have deficits to pay off. However, will the Minister consider the solution that the Opposition propose: an exceptional medicines fund, which would take the funding of those expensive but efficacious medicines out of the local health authority budget? Patients throughout the country may then be assured of equality of treatment in the knowledge that a national fund is available to support treatment with proven, efficacious drugs that have been through the rigorous NICE appraisal procedure.
I shall use the last couple of minutes available to talk about the problem of data transfer and the cancer registries, which several hon. Members mentioned. I hope that the Minister can tell us specifically what solution the Government propose. It was not clear yesterday, on Second Reading of the Health and Social Care Bill, whether clause 59, on patient information, is intended to be the basis of the solution.
Will the Minister confirm, for the benefit of some of her hon. Friends who may not have heard this remark, that Lord Falconer advised the other place that the Data Protection Act 1998 presents no impediment to the transmission of data to the cancer registries, and that it is the GMC's interpretation of that Act that has proved to be the problem? I understand the difficulty of obtaining patient consent at a particularly sensitive moment—the moment of diagnosis—but I am sure that it will be interesting for the House to know whether the Minister believes that, to overcome this problem, some form of

statutory compulsion in relation to the registration of cancer will be required. It would also help if the Minister could tell the House what arrangements she will propose—I understand that there was a commitment to do so in the new year—to finance and fund cancer registries. That will give some flesh to the statement in the national cancer plan, which says:
The public health benefits depend on the completeness of cancer registration in the population. The government is determined to secure the future of cancer registration and will take the necessary action to ensure this.
When we deal with something as important as cancer registries and the part that they play in the battle against cancer, it is vital that we do not allow the issue of transmission of confidential patient data to become muddied with other issues. Is the Minister aware that, during the recent Court of Appeal hearing in which the Department of Health initially sought to overturn the decision of the courts that pharmacists and doctors could supply anonymised patient data to drug companies, counsel for the Department admitted openly in court that the Department of Health's motive for wishing to deny the freedom to pass such Information, suitably anonymised, to drug companies was that it believed that it would increase the drugs bill? Will the Minister look into that question? I can assure her that, whereas we all want to co-operate with the Government to ensure that the cancer registries and the work that they do are protected, when the Government's own counsel openly admits that ulterior motives are in play, We become a little more sceptical.
I have asked plenty of questions and many issues have been raised today. We were already aware of a number of those, but we owe a debt to the Committee for having collated those questions and put them together clearly and coherently. I look forward to the Minister's speech and hope that she can answer many of the questions that have been posed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I join hon. Members in congratulating members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on their report into cancer research, and on today's debate. The report and the debate have been far-reaching on the subject of cancer, which is extremely important because lives are at stake. I congratulate the hon Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) on his able and expert chairmanship of the Committee in complex scientific and medical territory, and on producing a well-informed and thoughtful report.
The Committee's deliberations, hearings and conclusions have contributed to the Government's developing work on cancer, particularly in the run-up to the publication of the national cancer plan. I believe that today's debate will also make a contribution, as it is an area where a considerable amount of work is under way.
The national cancer plan was published after the report and, for the first, time drew together as part of a single strategy work on prevention, screening, treatment, support for patients, palliative care and research. It is the first time that this country has had a national overarching strategy on cancer. We should not underestimate the significance of that because, although it does not sound like rocket science to draw together all those strands, it is fundamentally important, to improve treatment, care and


research across the board, that we co-ordinate properly our work on cancer, which is one of Britain's biggest killers.
It is in the context of the national cancer plan that I want to reply to many of the issues raised today. The Committee's report makes it clear that we face a serious problem. Each year, 200,000 people are diagnosed with cancer and 120,000 die of it.
This country's strengths include research, children's cancers, rapidly developing prevention services such as smoking cessation, national health service screening programmes and palliative care, particularly as a result of the tradition of the hospice movement and the voluntary sector. However, the Committee and the House are right that some aspects give cause for concern. Survival rates for some cancers do not match those in the rest of Europe. We have huge inequalities in who gets cancer and who survives it. Those on low incomes are more likely to get cancer, and they are also less likely to survive it. The quality of care varies across the country and there is a long legacy of underinvestment in cancer infrastructure, equipment and staffing, which reduces the quality of care.
The national cancer plan aims to produce a turnaround—to build on progress that has been made so far but to go further and deliver the fastest improving cancer services in Europe, and to push our survival rates up to match the best in Europe.
We have already made considerable progress in cutting waiting times, in new international standards, new investment, new equipment and in bringing new services on stream, but it is absolutely right, and the Committee is right to say so, that we have much to do.
We have set out in the national cancer plan proposals for extra spending of £570 million on cancer each year by 2003, expanding capacity with 1,000 extra cancer specialists in the pipeline; new equipment; extra services, such as extending breast cancer screening; new prevention and palliative care services; new research programmes; reform of cancer collaboration to speed up care; and new national standards and guidelines to improve the way in which we provide services and raise quality, too. That is the greatest focus on cancer in the history of the NHS, and it provides a huge opportunity. Today's debate reflects the priority given to cancer in the House as well as by the public.
We have had a good debate. The hon. Member for Rayleigh kicked off by referring to the importance of increasing investment and the importance of the National Cancer Research Institute. Concerns about the cancer registries were raised by many hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) referred to the importance of patient involvement and the geographical spread of research, and of ensuring that research takes place throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke in detail and with expertise about the work being done at Mount Vernon. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who has done much in the House to promote the debate on cancer, described articulately the need to improve cancer survival rates and to cut waiting times. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) referred to thy, importance of basic research and proper networks for research and cancer care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) rightly referred to the excellent work under way in Birmingham, which I have seen for myself and applaud. She also raised concerns about the cancer registries, with which I shall deal later. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) spoke of the potential for complementary and alternative medicines in helping patients to deal with cancer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke in detail about the importance of the national cancer research institute and of further co-ordinating cancer research. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) referred to the need to spread new technology and to ensure that staff are properly trained to deal with it. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred in detail to a series of matters, including research on the cancer registries and treatment, to which I shall attempt to respond.
I shall deal first with research, as that formed the core of the Committee's report and has been referred to in detail today. Many forms of research are needed. Laboratory research helps us to understand the genetic and cellular changes. Genetics research is needed into who is at risk of cancer; epidemiological studies are required into the causes of cancer; and clinical trials are needed to find better ways of treating cancer.
This country makes a major contribution to all aspects of cancer research. We have world-renowned scientists, doctors and many others, working in centres of excellence funded by the Government, the cancer research charities and the pharmaceutical industry. Although we should be proud of the excellence in place across the country, three major concerns about cancer research emerge from the Committee's report: first, the research needs greater co-ordination and strategic direction, given the many different organisations involved; secondly, improved research infrastructure is needed; and, thirdly, there are concerns about the level of investment. I shall deal with each of those concerns in turn.
We very much recognise the need for greater co-ordination. The initial step in tackling that was the setting up of the Cancer Research Funders Forum in 1999. The forum includes the Department of Health, the Medical Research Council, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, the Cancer Research Campaign, the Ludwig Institute and Marie Curie Cancer Care. It has been a considerable success in starting better to co-ordinate cancer research across the country. It has done a lot of work in developing the national cancer research network. We asked it to conduct a review not only of the gaps in prostate cancer research, but of the direction that should be taken in the key areas and the overall strategy for prostate cancer research.
That is an example of the potential to take forward research through the Cancer Research Funders Forum, but the Committee was absolutely right to say that we need to go further. That is why we set out in the national cancer plan proposals to create the national cancer research institute, picking up the Committee's work on the subject. Like the Committee and most of the charities and researchers, we agree that a single bricks-and-mortar facility would not be the best way to make progress in co-ordinating cancer research. However, it will be an organisation in its own right, with staff and the weight to


work consensually with all the different organisations to develop an over-arching strategy and to ensure that all cancer research is properly co-ordinated.
The Government would disagree with the Committee in that all Government funding needs to flow through that organisation. We believe that the institute can co-ordinate the funding from the different organisations and that there are advantages—for example, for the Medical Research Council—in linking basic cancer research with other forms of basic research. For example, the human genome project will be beneficial to cancer research as well as having considerable benefits for other research.
The second concern that has been raised about research is the importance of improving the infrastructure. We strongly believe that we need to improve the clinical research infrastructure in this country. That is why we have announced the creation of a national cancer research network. Two groups will work together to achieve the overall aims. A consortium involving the universities of Leeds and York and the MRC clinical trial unit will concentrate on operating a network for controlled trials.
Professor David Kerr will lead the NHS contribution to early studies translating advances in basic science into promising new treatments for cancer through a network of centres. That research network will be integrated into, and work closely with, the National Cancer Research Institute. That approach has been broadly welcomed by the charities and represents a huge step forward, and we are putting an extra £20 million into it.
We strongly agree on the need to boost investment. That is why we are boosting the investment through the science budget by an average of 7 per cent. a year in real terms over the next three years. It is also why we are increasing the money specifically for cancer research. In 1995–96, £50 million was spent on directly commissioned cancer research from the Department of Health and the MRC. That spending increased to £73 million in 1998–99, before the plan, and it will be £105 million by 2002–03, doubling the direct investment since the election. Of course, as we set out in the plan, we are increasing the overall Government funding to match voluntary sector funding.
I shall briefly deal with the cancer registries. Clause 59 of the Health and Social Care Bill includes a regulation-making power, which will allow the Secretary

of State to require information to be passed on for important purposes. That will provide a legislative solution to the problem of the cancer registries. It is important, however, that the cancer registries also recognise issues of patient confidentiality. That is why work is under way to consider the use of anonymised data and to develop technical solutions to the problems of linking records, which may help us to find alternative ways to deal with patient confidentiality. It is certainly true that clause 59 will provide a legislative solution, and there will be time to discuss that in detail in Committee.
Let me deal briefly with the other treatment and care issues that have been raised. We set new targets for waiting times across the board, not simply those to see a specialist, but those for diagnosis and treatment. Those targets are coming into place this year. There is a one-month target for the wait between diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer. If the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge remains so opposed to the two-week target for the wait to see a consultant, does he plan to state in the Conservative manifesto that he would abolish it?

Mr. Hammond: rose—

Yvette Cooper: I apologise for asking that question so late in the debate, but the hon. Gentleman needs to answer before the election, because that target provides patients with a lot of reassurance.
We are also providing investment to increase the number of oncologists, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East said. There will be an extra 1,000 new consultant posts, including hundreds of extra oncologists. However, our proposals are about not just extra investment, but reform involving the work of the cancer collaboratives, NICE and the new national cancer standards.
A huge amount of work is going on to improve cancer care in this country. It will take time; we must be realistic about that. It is about extra investment, but also about reforming the way we proceed—
It being Four o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)

As amended, considered.

4 pm

Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this point of order, but you will understand why when I explain it.
I have just picked up the statement from the promoters in support of the consideration of the Bill, as amended. This is the second statement provided to the House about the Bill. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider what procedures should exist with regard to these statements, on the following grounds? The statement has been issued, but it was not possible to challenge it prior to its circulation to all hon. Members, so Members could not refute some of the information within it which I believe to be inaccurate and may well have influenced Members' decision whether to attend and participate today. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, examine the procedures whereby these statements are issued to hon. Members via the Vote Office, so using the offices of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a question of order for the Chair. Information has been supplied and, as the House knows, sometimes, from even more eminent sources, material is provided at short notice.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that it is not for any Member or for the House to impede the circulation of information to Members from whatever source. However, this statement has been provided to Members with a copy of the Bill via the Vote Office, in other words using the resources of this House, which, I believe, are provided for the facility of Members. If so, there must be a mechanism whereby the information contained in a statement can be challenged by other Members. It may be that a promoter should be required to give notice to interested Members in advance of a statement's circulation so that they can contradict elements within it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters for the Chair. We have a procedure for private Bills and the promoter can deposit material in the House. If the material is in question or debatable, the next three hours have been set aside for such debates to take place. There is no further point of order on that matter.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the ruling that you have just made, that there is no further point of order about the promoter's statement, is it not incumbent on the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) at least to start the debate with an explanation of the derivation of the statement, the accuracy of the information contained in it and the thinking behind it? Should he not let us know at what level this has been discussed by the City of London Corporation? As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has just explained, the statement is given, in effect, an official seal of approval because it is circulated along with official

House of Commons papers by the Vote Office. If there are serious inaccuracies in it—that could not happen in a statement from a Government Department because it would be challenged—why cannot such a statement be challenged in the case of a private Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter of order for the Chair; it is a matter for debate. I do not know what contribution the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) may wish to make to the debate. He has hardly had a chance as the first two Members to catch my eye have been the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). These are not matters for the Chair, but they may be matters for argument later.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should the right hon. Gentleman now wish to avail himself of the opportunity of the start of the debate to make a statement on the information that has been circulated and be allowed to have questioning and discussion on it, would that not be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot change the private Bill procedure to meet a particular point. Information has been provided, but that has nothing to do with the Chair. The Chair's responsibility in these circumstances is to follow the order of business before us and that is what I now propose to do.

New Clause 2

STATEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

'(). Section 3 of the Act shall not have force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Act are compatible with the Convention rights.'.—[Mr. Mackinlay.]
Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 11, in clause 2, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'the Convention rights" has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998.'.

Mr. Mackinlay: Many of the arguments relating to the changes proposed to the Bill were well rehearsed in this Chamber a year ago by myself and others, so I will not detain the House by repeating them, other than where it is necessary to put matters in context or to raise new matters with which I have become acquainted during the intervening period.
It has not escaped my notice that we have a different Minister on the Front Bench. I welcome the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes); no doubt she has done her homework and read the debates of a year ago. I regret that the Government have acquiesced in this repugnant situation, although I prevailed upon the Minister on the previous occasion. I am a man who always has great faith and perhaps today, with a new


Minister and after 12 months' reflection, the Government may have changed their attitude to my amendments and generally to the Bill.

Mr. McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the Bill is that we are now into the third year of its examination? The inconsistency of representation on the Government Front Bench has meant that at different times there has been inconsistency of attitude towards the details of the Bill. Does he agree that that has been a major problem?

Mr. Mackinlay: That may well be. I find it deeply disappointing that a Labour Government support extending the franchise not on the basis of one person, one vote, but to property voters. I am proud that the Attlee Government and others did away with the university vote. The Wilson Government did away with the very thing that we are proposing, in Derry and Londonderry. Here we are acquiescing in it. I do not wish to delay the House and I promised you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I would address my remarks to the amendments. Nevertheless because there is a new Minister present it is right to have said that.
The House will no doubt divide upon this. Although it is a charade and fiction that the Government are neutral on private Bills, we shall see whether every Minister present will support the City of London and the promoters of the Bill. No doubt they will prevail on others to join them in the Lobby and I deeply regret that.
A year ago I discovered the subject matter of my new clause while examining the Bill. I was instinctively opposed to the Bill, so scratched its surface and found that it was flawed in terms of our commitment to human rights. Either the Bill should be amended to meet our commitments under the human rights legislation or it should be rejected. If the Bill is passed, it must be improved in the way in which I have outlined in the new clause.
This is a classic example of where, rarely in this place, we can examine legislation in detail, albeit on the Floor of the House. I hope that I might persuade the few who are present in the Chamber of my case. I know from informal discussions that I have had with Ministers and Officers of the House that the point that I outlined last January is valid.
When we pass what are known as Government Bills, each one has on it a declaration headed "European Convention on Human Rights". For example, the Armed Forces Bill has printed on it:
Mr. Secretary Hoon has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
In my view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
We do that for Government Bills, but not for so-called private Bills, which have different Standing Orders for their consideration by this and the other House. That is clearly a deficiency. In Government circles—for example, the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and the office of the Leader of the House—it is accepted that this issue needs to be addressed. They have had considerable time in which to remedy it.
One of the consequences of my noting this deficiency in the way in which private Bills are presented, and their deficiency in terms of human rights legislation, has been that I have applied the same objection to other private Bills, which have been frustrated. They are probably very good Bills, but I and other hon. Members have a duty as legislators to ensure that Bills that go through the House and reach the statute book are not flawed.
The promoters of those other Bills had hoped that the Government would, through the usual channels, provide a remedy to the deficiency and allow their Bills to proceed. It was also hoped that the promoters of this Bill would recognise that they should either recommend that my new clause be adopted, or find some other way of ensuring that their Bill was compliant with our human rights obligations. We might hear from my hon. Friend the Minister whether any changes are to be proposed to deal with that matter.

Mr. McDonnell: Just to clarify a point that I shall make at a later stage, section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 clearly states that the Minister needs to make a statement with regard to the Act. That is not just a statement about compliance. A statement is also needed if the legislation does not comply, but the Minister wishes the House to proceed with it. That is the key issue. Information must be provided to the House either way—whether the Bill complies or not—which then becomes available as part of the consideration of the debate. That is not required for private Bills. The Act provides an informative power.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend anticipates me to some extent. I have always felt that this Bill would not pass the litmus test of lining it up against our human rights legislation. I shall give my reasons for that. In the protocol to the convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as amended by protocol No. 11, which is appended to the convention, article 3 is headed "Right to free elections". It states:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
This is not a subject to which I referred in the debate a year ago: it is a new point. Article 3 makes clear the obligation to hold free elections.

Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend leaves his examination of the convention, will he confirm that at no point does it give the right to vote either to corporations or to the buildings that house them?

Mr. Mackinlay: Of course it does not, because that would be alien to the concept of democracy that is implicit and explicit in all our European obligations and conventions. The promoters of the Bill dare not accept the amendment because they would find that the Bill did not comply. The Bill is anathema to all that we are committed to under the convent on and other international treaties and obligations. It would also be hypocritical of the United Kingdom, when I and other hon. Members are expected to go round the world preaching democracy and the principles of representation, to pass a Bill that takes us in the opposite direction.
4.15 pm
I want to concentrate on the statement in article 3 that the elections
will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
In my interpretation, the word "legislature" applies to the City of London Corporation. That is because a legislature can be construed, in this context, as any law-making body, including a subordinate law-making body. The Court of Common Council passes legislation in the form of byelaws and it controls the police force which issues summonses and fines. The court also has a quasi-judicial role in dealing with planning applications, and so on. Article 3 applies in this case and the Bill therefore contravenes article 3 of the protocol of attached to the European convention.
I reiterate a point that I made in the debate a year ago. Although the Government are not the promoters of the Bill, they ultimately have a duty to protect and defend the veracity of the United Kingdom statute book. There is no such thing in law as a private Act. Any Bill that goes through this process and receives Royal Assent becomes an Act of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stephen Pound: Before my hon. Friend moves away from Britain's role as an exemplar in these matters, will he tell us whether there is any great move in, say, Frankfurt or Paris to adopt this peculiar British model? The model that we are considering today is clearly perceived as superior, although I am unaware of its currently being imitated anywhere else in the world. Does my hon. Friend know of any great move in that direction? Has a cry gone up in the bourse of Paris for a similar form of masonic—in the sense that it relates to masonry—representation?

Mr. Mackinlay: That is not my brief, because I am addressing myself specifically and precisely to the amendment. However, my answer to my hon. Friend is no.
The Attorney-General, not the City of London Corporation, would have to defend the veracity of the statute book in terms of this Bill, were it to receive Royal Assent and become an Act. I notice that article 52 of section 3 of the convention states:
On receipt of a request from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe any High Contracting Party shall furnish an explanation of the manner in which its internal law ensures the effective implementation of any of the provisions of the Convention.
The high contracting party is not the City of London Corporation, but the United Kingdom. We should have to explain why this Bill, after it became an Act, was compliant. The Attorney-General—who, unfortunately, is not a Member of this House—would be straining to show that the Bill was compliant.
I promised that I would not detain the House. There are sufficient anoraks in this place who will have read and absorbed last year's deliberations. I hope that the Minister has read them. She will remember that Ian Smith introduced similar legislation with regard to the franchise and the meritocracy in Rhodesia, and we found that repugnant. However, that is what the Government are proposing. They should reflect on and reconsider the matter.
I am modern—

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Modern?

Mr. Mackinlay: I really am modern. It is not just a label—the test is in the eating.
It is deeply conservative, in every respect, to defend the existing franchise arrangements of the City of London Corporation and to compound that perversity in the Bill. I hope that the Minister wants to make a name for herself and shock us by leading us into the Division Lobby in favour of the new clause. Perhaps she will invite the promoters to pause and reflect on whether the Bill should proceed.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend gave us an idea that discussions might have taken place elsewhere. I do not want to compromise the confidences that he has entered into, but will there be any shift on the matter in the near future with regard to private Bills?

Mr. Mackinlay: I shall not betray confidences because there are none to betray. I detained the House on this matter a year ago and have had informal discussions with Ministers. As someone who is interested in the rubrics of this place, I have also talked to officials. The Human Rights Act 1998 means, for example, that Secretary of State Hoon puts his certificate on the Armed Forces Bill. However, everyone recognises that the Act is flawed and Parliament was foolish in not providing comparable arrangements for so-called private Bills.
I have been frustrating the progress of other private Bills for a narrow reason, not because I believe that the motives behind them are repugnant—I have no reason to think that—but because the promoters have told me that they have been banging on the Government's door and received assurances that the matter would be remedied "over the summer." In addition, in response to parliamentary questions that I tabled, the Minister has said that the issue was being considered.
The problem is not with me, but with the failure and lethargy of the system, and the slow way in which things crank along in Whitehall. That is why an amendment has not been proposed to our Standing Orders and/or discussions have not taken place with the Bill's promoters. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is a delightful colleague, but I cannot for the life of me understand why he will not accept the new clause, other than the fact that he and the promoters know that the Bill would have to fall because it would not be human-rights compliant.

Mr. Pound: While my hon. Friend is in such a henotic mood, will he allow me to imply a slight note of criticism of his use of the word "anoraks"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant to what we are discussing.

Mr. Mackinlay: I think that it was taken in the spirit in which it was meant. Anoraks, train-spotters or people who stand outside Heathrow airport to watch planes—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to compound the felony.

Mr. Mackinlay: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Some people are interested in the way in which Parliament is run, and they have turned up today. Some people who watch us on television are also enthusiastic about our proceedings. That was the parallel.
I have finished. My case is made. I want to hear the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who speaks for the Bill's promoters, say whether he will accept the new clause, and if not, why not. I also look forward to hearing the Government justify their deeply conservative attitude to the Bill.

Mr. McDonnell: I hope that the failure of Opposition Members to rise to speak means that they accept the principle of the matter.
I should explain that I have just returned from visiting my family in Tanzania. I received a message a short time ago that my father-in-law has gone down with malaria, the symptoms of which are a cold, aching bones with the flu and the shakes. I feel a cold coming on and have aching bones, but I do not have the shakes. However, if I do get them, you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I might withdraw from the debate. [Interruption.] It is not contagious.
Let me be clear about the new clause. Concern—almost anger—was expressed when we discussed the issue previously. I have raised the matter on, I think, eight separate occasions as points of order or in debate. The Human Rights Act should be acknowledged as the determinant of our practices in the House. That is why we debated it in November 1997. The discussion ensured that, by endorsing the Act, every aspect of our governance, in terms of legislation and administration, would be compliant with it; otherwise, we would seek the necessary derogations to ensure that we could justify, at least with our international partners, any variation.

Mr. Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend finishes his point on derogations, is he aware of whether any such application was made during the negotiations either for establishing the European convention on human rights in the first place or, more recently, for introducing it to British law in respect of local government?

Mr. McDonnell: I expected the promoters of the Bill at least to indicate that there might be a need, if the Bill is enacted, for a derogation to be sought in the future. Since the Human Rights Act has been implemented, the Government have made no attempt to seek a derogation under the convention in local government legislation, statutory instruments or administrative orders. That puts this legislative proposal in context.
When we debated the Act, it was clear—I remember the ministerial statements—that we wanted to find a mechanism that would allow us to advise others in our society about human rights abuse and adherence to human rights measures, and to ensure that Parliament, as a legislative body, complies with it. That is how section 19 of the Act came about.
4.30 pm
Section 19 was debated, and the Government and others made the obvious point that when legislation comes

before the House someone should make it clear that it is compliant. I remember that debate clearly, and it was pointed out that legislation might not be compliant for a number of justifiable reasons. There might be conflicts with individual national sovereignties or a conflict within the hierarchy of human tan rights. I believe that this is such an instance, which is why the new clause is so important. Section 19 was drafted in such a way as to enable a Minister to come to the House and say either, "The legislation is compliant," or "The legislation is not compliant, but we would like you to proceed with it and enact it for the following reasons."
I have not been party to any private discussions or confidences, as hon. Friends may have been. At no stage during the debate or section 19 was the view expressed that not all legislation should be covered by the Human Rights Act. If that had been an issue at the time, specific reference would have been made to it in that debate, and the Act would have excluded individual elements of the legislative process. The issue was never raised in any of the debates or during any of the consultative processes. I shall give way to any Member or Minister who wants to point out any reference in a public debate or a consultative paper to the need for legislative exclusions from the Human Rights Act.
At an early stage the possibility of a problem with private Bills was identified, for which I give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). However, by that time the Human Rights Act had been passed and it would have been difficult to amend it or to introduce further such legislation, but that will have to happen. We have said that we will ensure that all our legislation and administrative practices are compliant with the convention rights. We have taken on responsibility for enforcing human rights, which means dealing with people who abuse those rights—through physical or administrative abuse —yet we have failed to ensure that all our own practices are compliant. Previous debates have highlighted that issue and I am deeply disappointed that the Government have made no proposals for private Bills. More specifically, I am disappointed that they have not taken action on this Bill to enable it to be amended so that it would comply with the Human Rights Act before it was enacted.
Despite everything that my hon. Friend has said, I have problems with the new clause. Although I support its spirit, in practice it is faulty and I regret that I may have to vote against it. My arguments concern the importance of legislation being compliant. I have previously raised the question—I have not laboured the point—of Members' liability in failing to comply. I do not believe that we are covered by privilege in the case of human rights legislation, as the Pinochet case has made clear.
We are now into the third year of proceedings on the Bill, and having raised these points for two and a half years I would like clear answers from the Minister or the sponsor. Why are private Bills, and this Bill in particular, different from other legislation? Why are they not covered by the Human Rights Act? A similar new clause was tabled at an earlier stage. The case for it was eloquently made, and it gave the Government a way forward. In some way, it would have made the Bill comply with the Human Rights Act just before its enactment or, at least, before its implementation.
The case for that new clause was that section 19 of the Human Rights Act refers to a Minister being responsible for legislation and making a statement about its compliance, and in the earlier debate it was argued—these proceedings descend into farce at times—that no Minister is responsible for a private Bill. That is ludicrous because at every stage of the proceedings on the Bill, a Minister has led for the Government and advised the House on the Government's attitude to the Bill. That can be construed as a Minister being responsible for a Bill. If that is not the case, why are Ministers present during the debate at all?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is raising an interesting point, but it is completely outside the scope of the new clause before us, and I would be obliged if he returned to that subject.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the argument about human rights legislation is relevant because the Government's Law Officers are responsible for the passage—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to challenge my ruling.

Mr. McDonnell: I do not seek to challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I want to clarify why I am making this point. The new clause is important because it would mean that a Minister would become responsible for the Bill. It says:
Section 3 of the Act shall not have force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to the effect
that it is compliant with human rights legislation. There is a contradiction between the Government's attitude in the past and the appropriate practice I believe that there has been ministerial responsibility for private Bills, because the House has been advised by Ministers. However, the new clause would make it clear that the Secretary of State would eventually have responsibility, if only in the narrow matter of advising on enactment.
I appreciate your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I abide by it, but I simply make the point that if we passed the new clause Ministers would have to be responsible for private Bills, and that would make them liable for their advice. The Secretary of State would be responsible for making a formal statement, but to whom would he make it? Where would he make it? What purpose would it serve? What responsibility would the House then have to act? Who, at that stage, would have any opportunity to do anything? Or is the advice to the Crown? Would the statement constitute advice to Her Majesty not to sign the Act because it was not compliant?

Mr. Mackinlay: I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said, and he has invited us to consider a scenario. If my new clause was agreed to, and if the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General or the Law Officers considered the Bill not to be consistent and compliant with our human rights legislation, that would be communicated to Parliament, presumably through a statement in the Bill, as with Government Bills. The high contracting party—the United Kingdom Government—would then have to use their payroll vote to defeat the Bill, should the promoters persist. That is the point: Her Majesty's Government would have to say where they stood.

Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, although I agree with the principle that he has

established—at some stage, a Minister would become responsible and, under section 19 of the Human Rights Act, make a statement—such a statement should have been made when the Bill was published. I shall come to that point later. A Minister would make a statement, but the House could not then consider the Bill and there would be no procedure whereby it could be republished, considered in Committee, amended and ratified. I am willing to be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or any other Member on that.

Mr. Mackinlay: Such a Bill would be defeated.

Mr. McDonnell: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend says that the Bill would be defeated. My view all along has been that the House should either amend it to make it workable or defeat it and throw the thing out. I still think that we have to try to make it workable and I am willing to accept compromises over the role of the City Corporation.

Mr. Robert Syms: The hon. Gentleman said that the City offered him a meeting. Has he taken up that offer?

Mr. McDonnell: That is a difficult question.

Mr. Robert Jackson: It is a straightforward question.

Mr. McDonnell: I cannot tell hon. Members why it is a difficult question because it is a matter for advice. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and I met the City Corporation to discuss an appropriate amendment, but I do not want to take the discussion beyond the new clause.

Mr. Mackinlay: We should consider the point raised by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), my way. I would not discuss those matters outside the House with the promoters, other than to make clear what I said a year ago. This year, however, I was not invited to the Lord Mayor's show.

Mr. McDonnell: We have all been regularly invited to the Lord Mayor's show. However, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, I should confirm to my hon. Friend that I met the City Corporation to consider an appropriate compromise amendment. At that stage, it was not acceptable to me. I was extremely concerned about elements of the discussion, but I shall deal with that elsewhere and perhaps in private.
I support the principle in the new clause, but my main argument concerns process. The Secretary of State's responsibility would be established, but there would be no procedure to enable the Bill to be considered on the Floor of the House. I am willing to take advice on that at any stage. I say to the promoters that I would support such a new clause if they made proposals that would enable us to undertake such consideration.
I move on to the other arguments, one of which I want to place on the record. The debate is intensely frustrating because the matter could have been resolved so long ago. The Minister argued that the Bill is a private Bill and therefore not subject to consideration by the House in


respect of the Human Rights Act. That is ludicrous. The Bill is printed under the auspices of the House and is being considered by the House.

Mr. Mackinlay: indicated dissent.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend shakes his head. The printing may have been paid for, but the Bill is printed on House of Commons paper and under the auspices of the regulations of the House. It is being considered in the Chamber. It may be a private Bill, but as soon as it becomes a matter for debate it is our Bill. That point was made earlier, but not sufficiently clearly. We have ownership of the Bill. It is no longer the City of London Corporation's Bill, but ours. We debate it here. Should we enact it, it would become legislation signed up to by the House. Therefore, it is ludicrous to say that it is nothing to do with us, but is some private matter to which the human rights convention cannot apply.
4.45 pm
It was also argued that, to comply with the principle of the new clause, the private promoter could make a statement guaranteeing or assuring the House that the Bill is compliant. During a previous debate, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that the City Corporation had taken advice and considered the Bill to be compliant. He also assured the House that, because the Attorney-General had not made a statement, the Bill was compliant. I am afraid that the tacit consent of the Attorney-General is not good enough. As far as I am concerned, a statement has to be made. It is noticeable that that legal advice has not been published. During the previous debate, which informs this debate, I made the specific point that any legal advice should be published in order to stand up.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has reminded us of that, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) can clarify the point. During our debate a year ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the corporation had taken legal advice and that the Bill was compliant. We pressed him on the nature of that advice. Will he publish it, as my hon. Friend asks, and was it the advice of counsel? I think that it was the advice of the corporation's jobbing solicitor. I have great respect for that good person, but his advice is not exactly that of counsel.

Mr. McDonnell: I shall make no reference to jobbing solicitors, but let me say that I did not make the point about publication to challenge in any way the veracity, honesty or integrity of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—far from it. Under section 19 of the Human Rights Act, a written statement—not just a statement to the House—must be made and must
be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
We asked for the promoters' statement to be put in writing to enable us, in a considered fashion, to take our time and receive advice on it. In my view, a ministerial statement, a signature and a sentence in a Bill is inadequate. That happens for other Bills, but the arguments should be made and the justifications set out.
The promoters made it clear that they had taken legal advice. My understanding was that it was detailed and that we could consider it closely and, if necessary, hold discussions with them. That takes me to the other point about meeting the corporation. If that advice had been published, I would have been happy to meet it to consider the details and, if necessary, lose the argument. However, it has never been published. That is why I believe that it is not acceptable to allow the individual promoter to be responsible for publishing the statement on compliance. Such a statement should be detailed.
The argument about the statement itself is that a Minister makes a statement about compliance and is then accountable to the House for the office that he or she holds and the advice that he or she then receives from the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor or whoever. Not agreeing to the new clause and leaving it to the promoters to say yea or nay on compliance may be acceptable to the consciences of some of us and may be perfectly practical.

Mr. Corbyn: If the Bill goes through in its current form, with an enormous unresolved question about compliance with the convention, at what point, in my hon. Friend's view, will it be in conflict with our Standing Orders?

Mr. McDonnell: Given the complexity of the Standing Orders of the House, I do not completely understand what point we have reached in the procedure. If the Bill is enacted and its legality in relation to the European convention on human rights is challenged, who will contest the challenge? Obviously, it must be the United Kingdom Government, even though the Minister never accepted responsibility for the Bill. What would our role be at that point? We would have abided by our Standing Orders, followed our existing procedure and complied with the human rights legislation that we had enacted, but we would have erred in the result.
We produce a result in legislation that is not compliant with human rights legislation because we are hidebound by our own Standing Orders, and the Government will not shift and will not amend human rights legislation to apply to private Acts. Although the new clause is ingenious, it still does not resolve the situation concerning the responsibilities of the House.
I return to the matter of accountability, to make it clear why I consider it so important. The promoters may well make a statement on compliance, but they are not in the House. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster may be their advocate on earth, but he is not formally the promoter of the Bill. I am open to advice on the matter, but the promoters are not accountable to the House for the Bill, and are not accountable for the advice that they provide. Only a Secretary of State advised by the Government legal officers can be responsible. That is why the new clause is key.

Mr. Corbyn: In the case of normal Government Bills, the speech made by the Minister promoting the Bill on Second Reading can be quoted in a court of law, as my hon. Friend knows. If a case were taken through the British courts and ultimately the European Court of Human Rights against the City of London Corporation because of its failure to comply with the European


convention on human rights, it is unclear who would be quoted as the authentic voice of Parliament's wishes in the matter.

Mr. McDonnell: We are getting ourselves into a state of total confusion about responsibilities. The matter could easily be resolved by the new clause, slightly amended, but it is too late in the game for that. We may have to return to it on another day.
The entire process has been frustrating. I have raised the matter eight times on a point of order, so there has been time to address it. It was not for the Chair, but for the Government, to undertake that.
The other argument advanced was that compliance with human rights legislation did not seem particularly important in the case of this Bill. At one point—I will defer to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who is present—the statement was made that the human rights aspect of the Bill was not considered by the Committee because that was not a matter raised for the Committee. However, as I demonstrated in previous debates, the issue of compliance was part of a petition, so it is relevant to the residents of the City of London, who raised it in their petition to the Committee.
I am concerned that the Committee, having received such a petition, at a time when the human rights legislation had just been enacted, was never advised that it should consider the matter. That did not reflect a lack of responsibility on the part of the Committee. I attended a number of its sittings, and at no stage was the Committee advised by the relevant officers.
Who was there to advise the Committee? The only people who seemed to take an interest were the promoters. We are told that there was no Minister responsible, so the Committee worked in the dark. If a petition challenges the proposed legislation's compliance with the Human Rights Act, I would expect the Committee to consider the matter.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for having had to dart out of the Chamber for a moment. I was at the Vote Office, because my attention was drawn to two Bills that have recently been deposited in another place, which are relevant. They are the Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill and the National Australia Group Europe Bill. The first of those Bills, under the heading
European Convention on Human Rights,
states:
In the view of Barclays Bank PLC the provisions of the Barclays Group Reorganisation Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
The second Bill goes further. Again, under the heading
European Convention on Human Rights,
the Bill states:
Jane L. Shirran, Senior General Counsel to National Australia Group Europe Limited, the promoter of the Bill, has made the following statement on behalf of the company:
In my view, the provisions of the National Australia Group Europe Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.
I intervene for two reasons. First, those examples show that promoters are making such statements—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister knew that—and, secondly, they emphasise why the promoters of this Bill should do so.

Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising a point that I had intended to raise later. In

virtually every other sphere of operation of private legislation—private Members' Bills or those of private promoters—we adhere voluntarily to section 19 of the Human Rights Act, but the promoters of the present Bill have not done so. That strengthens the argument for the new clause.
If voluntary approaches to compliance with section 19 are not made in a form that is open to examination—that is, in the Bill as published—which allows dialogue after publication, there must be some force of legislation to ensure compliance. That is why the new clause, in principle, meets the objective of a longstop.
I do not want to use cricket metaphors while you are in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the new clause contains a proposal for some form of longstop for legislation going through the net if the other promoters—Members or promoters outside the House—refuse to comply.
That applies not just to the Bill under discussion, but much more widely. A Member whose name comes up in the ballot will choose the legislation that he wishes to promote, then seek a meeting with the Clerk of the House and the legal officers to see whether the legislation will comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 because, in the spirit of the legislation that we endorsed in November 1998, section 19 should apply.
It would be useful to have an undertaking from the promoters that they will publish such a statement. I should also like to see the legal argument that backs it up.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Wantage has left the Chamber. When he chaired the Committee, he contested the assertion that the issue of human rights was a key issue. The matter was forcefully raised by Mr. Malcolm Matson in his petition. He argued very coherently that in his view the proposals effectively disfranchised a number of residents and would therefore not comply with human rights legislation. Mr. Matson continued:
Your Petitioner and his rights, interests and property are injuriously affected by the Bill."—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 95.]
At that stage, the Committee should have sought a statement from the promoters on compliance with human rights. It failed to do that and failed to address the issue. There was then a debate on the Floor of the House and, again, all that we had was a oral statement from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster.
5 pm
I am concerned, as we are dealing not with minor legislation but an issue that goes to the heart of the Human Rights Act. The new clause, faulty though it is, is about the only the chance that we have to ensure that we abide by our human rights responsibilities. I shall not go through it in detail but, as hon. Members have said, article 3 of the European convention on human rights made it clear that there should be free and fair elections. How would individual Members debate, discuss and identify whether the Bill complies with legislation on free and fair elections?
Obviously, we would do that as part of the process of debate, but we would also want to be informed by the Law Officers of the Government, and perhaps other specialists who deal in democratic procedures—especially


in local government—whether or not the proposals in the Bill afford free and fair elections. In normal circumstances, I would expect that point to be addressed early in Committee, based on the advice both of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which, with the Home Office, is responsible for electoral arrangements, and of the Law Officers of the Government. At no stage in any discussion before the Bill was introduced was any advice offered on whether it would result in free and fair elections.
There is therefore now a new clause that, as I said, will provide the longstop of having the Secretary of State at the end of the process—not during it—to say whether the Bill will result in free and fair elections. I have to say that, throughout the debate, the Government response to that proposal has been embarrassing and, at times, farcical. First, we were told that there were no powers in the legislation to ensure compliance with human rights legislation. We have tabled an amendment to enable those powers to be introduced, but still the Government cannot support it. We were told that section 19 of the Human Rights Act was a right, not a requirement on the Government to challenge interpretation of compliance in a private Bill. Fair enough: section 19 excludes private Bills. Again, in the past, the Minister tried to tell us that the Government would intervene as of right, not as a requirement.
At no stage have we been told that the Government will intervene. We have not been told that the Government will look at the Bill and, if necessary, will intervene if they find that it does not comply with human rights legislation. We have never been given that assurance, although we have asked different Ministers and Law Officers for assurances that the Government should act, identify the problem and suggest the remedy. I do not understand what is so complex about assessing the Bill against the conditions of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, which we endorsed. If the new clause is not acceptable when, possibly, we debate the Bill further, that may give the Government an opportunity to introduce their own proposal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now getting the very clear impression that the hon. Gentleman is repeating himself. I put him on warning; otherwise I shall apply Standing Order No. 42.

Mr. McDonnell: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am trying to argue that the new clause has been tabled because there has been a negation of the Government's duty to act in relation to compliance with human rights legislation. There is a duty to ensure that all legislation and, indeed all actions within the state, are compliant. That duty falls on the House and the Government as well as the promoters. Unless we accept the amendment, we shall be conspiring to make sure that we avoid our obligations under human rights legislation. It is interesting that, at various times, the Government have said that there should be a have-a-go morality: when we see a potential illegality, we should have a go. I am not arguing that the Government's Law Officers should wrestle the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster to the ground or anything like that. However, the Government should at least take the responsibility proposed in the

amendment to ensure that, at some stage, they can intercede. At this point, I believe that there is also a duty on the House, which we cannot avoid.
Finally, I agree with the amendment in principle, but I find it difficult to support it. The statement in the Bill is meant to assure Members that it complies with human rights legislation. If that assurance comes after the debate, but before enactment, the House will not have been informed and it will be too late to amend the Bill. The House could be led into illegality, and what would happen then? Would the Bill be enacted, and would we be liable? Would Royal Assent be an illegal act? I am not asking for the Queen to be banged up, or anything like that. However, we are reading ourselves into a situation where, even if we accept the amendment, we will have gone through a process that concludes with a Bill that is not compliant with human rights legislation.
If the amendment is put to the vote, I do not think that I can support it. Again, I ask the Government at least to reconsider the principle of the matter and, before the end of the passage of the Bill—if it is enacted at all—introduce a practical proposal that ensures that the Bill and all private Bills, all private Members' Bills and all privately promoted legislation comply with the Human Rights Act; otherwise, we will be forced to redress the matter at a later date, possibly after the general election. Even if the amendment is carried, I still worry that we will not have acted reasonably. I want to put it on record that, at every stage of debate on the Bill, I have made it clear that it is an abuse of the Human Rights Act. I accept no responsibility for the Bill if it is enacted. Therefore, if at any point in time, others are held liable, I will not be.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in our interesting debate. I was a little crestfallen at the lack of a wholehearted welcome from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) earlier. He and I share a particular political interest, and we are both working hard on it in our respective positions. I have great regard for the work that he is doing. I know that his comments were not meant personally; none the less, he knows me well enough now to know that I would not come to the Dispatch Box unless I was on top of the issue. I am not sure whether that means that he will get the shift in position that he wants, and I hope that he accepts that.
I am speaking earlier than I had intended because it is clear from listening to my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock and for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that they are not aware of a Government statement made earlier today. It may be helpful if I inform all Members in the Chamber of the current position. Today, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council answered a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), in which he asked what arrangements she intends to make to inform the House of the compatibility of private Bills with the European convention on human rights. I should like to give the House my right hon. Friend's answer in full:
Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to Private Bills. However, like all legislation, any Act resulting from the passage of such a Bill can be judged in the courts, either in the UK or in Strasbourg, for its compatibility with the ECHR. In future when Private Bills are deposited, promoters will be asked to


undertake a full assessment of the compatibility of their proposals with the ECHR and to make a statement setting out their conclusion as to whether the Bill is compatible or not. A Minister in the Government department within whose policy responsibilities the subject matter of the Bill falls will make a formal statement saying that he believes that the promoters have undertaken a full assessment and that he does not (or, if necessary, that he does) see any need to dispute their conclusions.
That does not, of course, mean that Ministers are accepting responsibility for private Bills, as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. My hon. Friend's argument about that was spurious and flawed, as the Government are not accepting responsibility for private Bills.

Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome the news given by the Under-Secretary and am grateful for her kind words, which I reciprocate. The announcement is a major step forward and, to a large extent, I have been asking for such an announcement for the past 12 months. She rightly stressed that the arrangement was for the future and that only legislation deposited in either House in future would be dealt with in the manner described. In that spirit, it would be fair and, more important, prudent for the Government to discuss with the promoter of the Bill whether the arrangement could be applied now. It is the Bill before us that is contentious, so perhaps the test should be applied now, even though the current process is under way.

Ms Hughes: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, I shall deal with his point in a moment.

Mr. Edward Davey: I echo the welcome given by the hon. Member for Thurrock to the written answer. I hope that it can be repeated in the House, so that more hon. Members will be aware of it. Many hon. Members of all parties have argued for the sort of change that it announced. However, I seek some clarification. Was the President of the Council speaking only about guidance that will bind members of the current Government, or will the Government seek to introduce the arrangement as legislation?

Ms Hughes: I shall have to leave it to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council to give greater clarity on the detail of her statement and on how the arrangements will work. I have at my disposal only the text of her answer. I hope that both the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will understand that I cannot pre-empt the further details that my right hon. Friend may want to give.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend is superb in dealing with her briefings and I understand her difficulty. We are discussing a major statement that was made at a late stage in the Bill's passage, so I understand her problems. However, I have a question that I should like her to take on board, although I do not expect her to respond today. When the Secretary of State or relevant Minister makes it clear that he or she has no dispute—that is the word that was used—with regard to the advice given by the promoter to the general public and the House, what element of liability for that advice will fall to the Government? Will the Government be taking

responsibility for compliance in respect of such legislation? I do not expect an answer today, but at least to consider the point, so it can be addressed later.

Ms Hughes: As I have made clear, the question of liability and compliance is ultimately for the courts. I thank my hon. Friend for his recognition that I cannot deal any further with that question today.
I should like to proceed with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock.

Mr. Davey: Before the Under-Secretary proceeds, will she answer another question about her previous comments? She told us that she was not sure whether the arrangements described in the written answer would be introduced in legislation. Will she ask the President of the Council whether she will make a full statement to House about the matter? I believe that it is of such substance that it is worthy to be the subject of such a statement.

Ms Hughes: I am sure that the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Council will be drawn to the comments made during today's debate. I shall undertake to ensure that she is aware of them.
Hon. Members who have been present at the Bill's other stages will know that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) assured the House that it is the promoters' opinion that no contravention of the European convention on human rights arises from the Bill. My right hon. Friend the President of the Council made it clear in her written answer that the requirement for a Minister to give a formal statement to the House in the light of the promoters' assessment applies only to Bills to be introduced in future.
5.15 pm
If, however, the promoter and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster wish to submit the assessment to me, I shall, in the spirit of the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council and of the Government's clear future direction on the matter, be happy to consider the assessment with a view to making a statement on Third Reading. The statement would deal with whether it had been properly carried out, in my view and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Subject to the views of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, that should not further delay today's business, which is to consider the amendments and to make more progress on the Bill.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome news about the future compatibility of private legislation. I imagine that such an arrangement must be introduced through a change in our Standing Orders. She seemed to say just now that she had received advice on the Bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights and with primary legislation. She appeared to think that there was no variance in that respect. Will she confirm that impression, or have I misunderstood her words? I believe that there is a clear distinction between the right to independent, free and fair elections and the proposals in the Bill.

Ms Hughes: I welcome the opportunity to put on record my hon. Friend's misunderstanding of my


comments. I have received no such advice. I have read the Hansard record of previous debates on the Bill and the comments of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, as well as the reply of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who is present today.

Mr. McDonnell: Again, I do not seek a response today, but I should like my point to be considered and dealt with in a further statement, perhaps on Third Reading. Will my hon. Friend assure hon. Members that any statement by the promoter on human rights compliance will be published, made public and made available for examination by all hon. Members? Of course, hon. Members may themselves want to seek legal opinions. If such an assurance cannot be given now, will my hon. Friend ensure that the matter is considered by the President of the Council?

Ms Hughes: I am sure that that is part of the detail in respect of which my right hon. Friend the President of the Council will want to consider the need for further explanation in the House. I do not feel that I can go further. I have made the Government's position clear in relation to future private Bills. In the spirit of my right hon. Friend's answer, I have made an offer to the promoters; if they want to make their assessment available to me and to the Department, we will make a statement on Third Reading.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are in the Chair, and are therefore responsible for protecting the rights and role of the House, I ask you to ensure that the statement made by the President of the Council in her answer is examined. I believe that a statement of such importance for the Bill should have been circulated previously, and made orally to the House, so that we could have taken it into account.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the Chair to determine how information is imparted to the House.

Ms Hughes: My right hon. Friend has made the position on future Bills clear in the proper manner, in answer to a question asked by an hon. Member. That information was put in the public domain before the start of the debate. My reference to it today was not intended to be a statement and did make the information available for the first time. It has been in the public domain for some time today.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The debate on human rights in relation to the Bill has already been the subject of a three-hour debate, almost a year ago, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said when the House divided on a new clause that he had tabled. I do not propose to repeat all that I said then in response, but I can provide the Official Report references. Given the level of interest that this issue has generated, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the actions taken by the promoters following last January's debate, and in response to the speech that the Minister has just made.
As hon. Members would expect, the promoters reviewed the issue of human rights in the light of the debate a year ago. In addition, they referred the Bill, the text of the debate and a copy of the Home Office's guidance to Government Departments on the Human Rights Act 1998 to specialist leading counsel for an opinion. That opinion confirms that the Bill's provisions are compatible with the convention.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I shall give way, but I do not guarantee that I will answer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman does not know what I am about to say.

Mr. Brooke: That is why I put in that caveat.

Mr. Corbyn: It is called getting one's rebuttal in first.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill has been referred to leading counsel, and that they have examined and considered the applicability of the Bill to the convention and the legislation. He has just made an important and significant statement. Would he undertake to publish that advice and to place it in the Library of the House?

Mr. Brooke: I can answer that question. I have not made an important statement, and I referred to the City as having taken legal opinion in the debate a year ago as well. I shall respond to the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question in my speech.
It is for Parliament to decide the procedural requirements for the disclosure of working papers. In respect of Government Bills, the requirement of section 19 of the 1998 Act is for a statement of compatibility. In her written reply to the hon. Member for Thurrock on last Session's Local Government Bill, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions stated that the Government do not normally publish their legal advice. That has a certain resonance for the question that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) just asked me.
The City would be hesitant to embark on a course of action that would take its approach out of line with that adopted for the mainstream of business brought before the House.

Mr. McDonnell: Even though the legal advice by Government Officers, which supports ministerial statements, has not been published, when a Minister makes a statement there is confidence that the legal advice is based on relatively sound advice that has been generated over a period. However, the non-publication of legal advice by a private promoter of a Bill, whom we can have no knowledge edge of or confidence in, is in a different category. We can have no full understanding of the depth of that advice. It behoves the promoters to publish the advice that they have received openly and transparently.

Mr. Brooke: I shall repeat what I said a moment ago. The normal provisions have been set out by the


Government, and it is not for the Corporation of London to be involved in expanding the law of the land beyond where it currently reaches.

Mr. Mackinlay: Was the advice given to the Corporation of London from counsel or was it obtained in-house—I do not mean that disrespectfully? May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, during the long summer recess, the promoters of the City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill and the Alliance & Leicester Group Treasury PLC (Transfer) Bill approached me and begged me to let their Bill advance. They offered to provide counsel's opinion and to publish it. That is the point. Other promoters are quite willing to do what my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has asked, unlike the promoters of this Bill.

Mr. Brooke: On this occasion, as on a previous occasion, I use the words "leading counsel" to mean what they say. The City of London consulted leading counsel. In one of the hon. Gentleman's interventions, he referred to a common or garden local solicitor, which is somewhat derogatory to leading counsel, if I may say so. It is not for me to cast aspersions on other promoters of other Bills who have decided to be trailblazing and go beyond the requirements of the 1998 Act. That is for them. That was an act of generosity on their part, but it was voluntary, and in the process they were trailblazing.

Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying no to the yes or no question that I put to him a few minutes ago. Will he explain to the House what on earth the Corporation of London wants to protect or hide by not publishing the advice it has been given on the human rights compatibility of this legislation? Anyone outside would find this legislation odd, if not peculiar, to put it at its politest. Why on earth will the corporation not publish the advice that it has received?

Mr. Brooke: I have already said that the promoters will be happy to fall in with what becomes the convention, and I am sure will be happy to participate in the dialogue that the Minister is offering. The Bill was deposited—to go back to the words used in the statement—long before the Human Rights Act was on the statute book. When it was deposited there was no such obligation on the promoters, and everything that has been done since has been done in the spirit of the Act.
I shall not prolong my speech by reiterating what I said at column 93 of Hansard on 24 January 2000 about the role of the Attorney-General in this process, which the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Thurrock will be perfectly well aware of because they took part in that debate. The Attorney-General did not choose to intervene in the Committee when suggestions were made that the Bill may not be compatible with the Human Rights Act. He assented, by silence, that it was compatible.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he be clear with the House? Is his

advice that the Bill is totally in line with human rights legislation, or at variance with it, or are there questions surrounding it?

Mr. Brooke: I can give the hon. Gentleman a categorical statement that leading counsel, having examined the Bill and the convention, said that it was fully compatible with the convention.
I hope that the three hon. Gentlemen will give me credit for my position. I should emphasise that everything I have said up to this point was prepared prior to the Minister's announcement, of which I had no prior knowledge; nor, I suppose, did the corporation. We have therefore had no opportunity to consider the consequences of the Minister's statement, but I will draw her comments to the promoters' attention—they are within earshot of our debate—and ask them to take stock, in the light of today's news. It would be unreasonable of hon. Gentlemen to press me further on the next steps that may be taken, for the same reason as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington was prepared to give the Minister the benefit of not answering any question on the spur of the moment. I say diffidently that the Minister had the advantage of knowing about the statement, which I did not.

Mr. McDonnell: At the risk of being unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, which I do not want to be, may I ask him whether, as the Member identified with the Bill—I shall put it no stronger than that—he will advise the corporation to comply with the procedure suggested by the Government, and if necessary go further and publish the legal opinion?

Mr. Brooke: As the Member in charge of the Bill, I shall continue to advise the promoters on the state of play in Parliament, exactly as I have done throughout.
The promoters have sought to replicate the requirements of section 19 so far as practicable by placing on record their considered opinion and that of leading counsel that the Bill complies with convention rights. Members will have seen on today's Order Paper the motion on Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights. The promoter will of course co-operate fully with the Committee in any inquiries that it may wish to pursue relating to procedures for private business.
The hon. Member for Thurrock, who added to what he said a year ago—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington—alluded to article 3 of protocol 1 of the European declaration of human rights, which states
:
The High Contracting parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
The City's franchise is not in breach of that. Elections take place annually, and a secret ballot is in operation.
5.30 pm
If I am to be intellectually honest, I must say that the corporation might have been vulnerable in this regard before the changes to the alderman system. Aldermen were entitled to sit for life, but that is no longer the case, and the corporation is satisfied that the franchise reforms are wholly in keeping with the requirements of the convention.
Article 14 of the declaration states:
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Mr. Mackinlay: I may refer to the news that the Minister has given us later, but let me say this now.
No doubt the Attorney-General and others will read the report of our deliberations in Hansard. Let me respond to what the right hon. Gentleman has said by pointing out that the legislation would be tested against European norms, and that European norms mean one person, one vote—unimpeded by a property franchise. That is where the legislation is flawed, and I think that the Attorney-General, or whoever else is involved, will note the new test announced by Ministers today.

Mr. Brooke: As there appears to be no evidence of the corporation's discriminating against the various groups named in the declaration, it would appear that what opponents are getting at is the property qualification—as the hon. Gentleman suggested—and the award of additional votes to properties with high rateable values.
It should be noted, however, that the entitlement is awarded to the company, and that any one individual will be allowed to vote only once. No extra power accrues to any one individual as a consequence of these reforms. Of course individuals will have the power to appoint voters, but the manner in which they do so will be governed by the Bill, which will ensure that votes are allocated so that the electorate reflects the work force of the company rather than individuals who can be trusted to vote in the way preferred by the owners. In any case, all City elections are conducted by secret ballot, and there would be no way for the company owner to check how his work force has voted.
I have referred to the opinion of leading counsel on this matter. The hon. Member for Thurrock said that the promoters would not dare to accept the new clause, because the Bill would not meet the human rights obligations. That statement conflicts with the fact that the City obtained an opinion from leading counsel—whose credentials I have described to the hon. Gentleman—which confirmed that the Bill is compatible with convention rights. I stress that that was said by leading counsel, not a common-or-garden solicitor.

Mr. Mackinlay: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of rights of voting for people in the City of London, may I make this point? He is talking, in effect, about people having a second vote. The vast majority will not be resident in the City of London. The equivalent does not apply to other people in the country. Somebody who lives in my constituency and works at Ford in Dagenham has no right to vote in local elections in Dagenham; that person can vote only in local elections where he or she lives. What provision in line with the convention allows superior participation for a certain number of people who happen to work in companies based in the City of London?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman absorbed my observation that no one would have more

than one vote. The fact that the Corporation of London still has a business vote was determined by the Labour Government of 1969, which granted a particular status to the City when they abolished the business vote elsewhere.
This Bill is not the only private measure in regard to which the question of compatibility with the Human Rights Act has been raised. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington will recall having raised it in the last session, on Second Reading of the Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill. The promoters of that Bill provided an assurance through a statement by its sponsor, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), on the Floor of the House, which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington accepted, withdrawing his objection in the process. That assurance was not stated to have the backing of leading counsel's opinion.
I simply observe that, given that the promoters have secured that backing there is even greater reason for hon. Members to take the same approach this time, and to accept the assurance that I have given.

Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brooke: I will, because I quoted the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McDonnell: My reason for withdrawing my objection was based not just on an assurance, but on the fact that I had examined the Bill in detail myself, and had no doubts about compliance. Now, not only do I have doubts about compliance; I am certain that the Bill does not comply with human rights legislation. That is why I want written assurances that at least advice has been given to the corporation, and some written advice from the Government. Perhaps the new procedure will make that possible.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman has one view; leading counsel has another. There is however still time for the practice that we are discussing to be pursued.
I know the hon. Gentleman to be a pure-minded and open-minded man. When it is proved to him that this is compatible with human rights legislation, I am sure that he will accept that.
I am aware that there is some discourtesy to the hon. Member for Thurrock, but I think we have covered the business encompassed by the proposal. I beg to move that the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Will the Serjeant-at-Arms investigate the No Lobby? It has been 14 minutes since the start of the Division.

The House having divided: Ayes 99, Noes 18.

Division No. 49]
[5.36 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beggs, Roy


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Bercow, John


Baldry, Tony
Blunt, Crispin


Beard, Nigel
Boswell, Tim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia






Brady, Graham
Lansley, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Leigh, Edward


Burstow, Paul
Letwin, Oliver


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)



Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clappison, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Collins, Tim
McNulty, Tony


Colman, Tony
MacShane, Denis


Cotter, Brian
Maples, John


Cran, James
Merron, Gillian


Cranston, Ross
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard


Dowd, Jim
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Emery Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Evans, Nigel
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Flight, Howard
Prior, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Randall, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Robathan, Andrew


Fowler Rt Hon Sir Norman
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Gale Roger
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hammond, Philip
Temple-Morris, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Touhig, Don


Heppell, John
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyrie, Andrew


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Walter, Robert


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Waterson, Nigel


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jenkin, Bernard
Wilkinson, John


Jenkins, Brian
Willetts, David


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wilshire, David


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Khabra, Piara S
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. Divid Amess.


NOES


Allan, Richard
McWalter, Tony


Banks, Tony
Pike, Peter L


Barnes, Harry
Savidge, Malcolm


Connarty, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Dismore, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Iddon, Dr Brian



Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Tellers for the Noes:


McDonnell, John
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Mackinlay, Andrew
Mr. Stephen Pound.

It appearing on the report of the Division that fewer than 100 Members voted in the majority, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question had not been decided in the affirmative.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that the debate will now continue, would it be possible for the statement made by the Government earlier today by means of a parliamentary answer to be copied and circulated to all hon. Members engaged in the debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is unnecessary. The statement will be available in the Library.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have been a victim of the closure motion had the Bill's sponsor been able to muster 100 people to vote, because I would then have been unable to reply to the debate. I am grateful to the House.
The House's disinterest in this matter was reflected in the Division on the closure motion. Bearing in mind the fact that a coalition that included the Deputy Prime Minister, the shadow Home Secretary and the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman did not succeed in stopping my right to free speech, is it not time that the Bill's promoters got the message that there is no mandate for this legislation in the House?

Madam. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order for the Chair, but I am sure that all hon. Members will have heard it. The debate will now continue.

Mr. Corbyn: I am pleased that the House has decided to allow the debate to continue, particularly as I was one of the two signatories to new clause 2 and amendment No. 11. The fact that I am now able to contribute to the debate leaves me a much happier Member than I was a few moments ago.

Mr. McDonnell: Perhaps my hon. Friend would expand on why so few Members were willing to turn up to support the Bill, thus giving him an opportunity to continue the debate.

Mr. Corbyn: I have had an interesting few minutes standing outside the No Lobby considering such matters. It seems to me that the Bill has run its course and run out of time. This is the third time this Parliament that we have discussed the Bill and, on the human rights issue alone, the sponsor is unable to convince the House of its compatibility with human rights legislation. That seems to me to send a clear message. If only 99 hon. Members can find their way into the Aye Lobby to vote for a closure motion when there is an all-party coalition in support of a Bill, that Bill has clearly run out of time and run out of supporters. I hope that the Bill's promoters will think about that and about the sense of promoting legislation about which many people have the deepest possible misgivings.
The new clause and the amendment deal with the Bill's compatibility with the European convention on human rights and the legislation that has been passed by the House to enshrine it in United Kingdom law. I invite the House to think about that for a moment. We passed the Human Rights Act 1998 because we believe in the rights of people to enjoy free elections, to have independent access to judicial decisions and to enjoy their rights as citizens. Yet the House is proposing to pass legislation which, in effect, runs against the spirit of everything that we understand as free, fair and independent elections. It is promoting the idea of election by corporation, by big business, by buildings and, to some extent, by the persons who happen to live and work in those buildings.
The sponsor of the Bill was questioned quite closely on this matter in his contribution: it seems strange that the Labour party, having for its entire existence campaigned against the business vote and the way in which the business men of yesteryear could vote at their home and place of business, is promoting that principle in the Bill.
The promoters' statement says that considerably more people will be entitled to take part in elections in the City of London. That may be true, but the principle is fundamentally flawed and undermined—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are continuing the debate on new clause 2. He is straying rather wide of that.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, but new clause 2 is about the compatibility of the Bill with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, passed by this Parliament. The convention clearly states that the principle of independent, free and fair elections based on the principle of one person, one vote, is to be the norm for legislative authorities throughout the contracting countries, of which this country is one. The Bill is fundamentally flawed in that respect. It runs contrary to that principle by providing votes for people at a place of business, and for businesses themselves, rather than for those who are ordinarily resident in the area.

Mr. McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend address what is at issue with regard to the new clause? Is he arguing that if the clause is not adopted and at no stage is there a statement by a Minister about compliance with the European convention on human rights, that will be taken as the Government's tacit support for the Bill? The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) has argued that the lack of a statement by the Attorney-General in Committee means that there is tacit support for the belief that this legislation does not contravene the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. We are considering a Bill which, to be fair to the promoter, was introduced before the Human Rights Act 1998 was passed by Parliament.

Mr. McDonnell: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, it has been argued time and again that the Bill was introduced before the 1998 Act was enacted. It has been two years since that enactment; we are now into the third year of the legislation. At no stage has the Corporation of London given any indication that it would comply with section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend outspeeds me in thought in this matter, and I congratulate him. I know that he has doubts about the new clause. My point was that, at the time of the Bill's deposition, the 1998 Act had not been passed—it was not part of British law. It now is part of British law. My hon. Friend is right that there has been ample opportunity for the Bill's promoters to come up with a definitive statement. The Bill's sponsor gave an oral statement this evening but has unfortunately declined to publish the evidence on the basis of which he made that statement. Therefore, the debate is still on.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: I take my hon. Friend's point, but at the time when the Bill was promoted we were signatories to the European convention on human rights. Although there may have been no formal legal

obligation to have a certificate under the European convention, surely that issue should be addressed when considering important legislation of this nature.

6 pm

Mr. Corbyn: Absolutely. The matter must be addressed. This country has been a signatory to the convention from its inception, so the convention has been part of British law in the sense that British citizens have ultimately had the right to go to the European Court if they want to do so. The convention is now part of British law and all legislation must be compatible with it, as the Minister has confirmed today. The question is: why on earth are the promoters not prepared to publish that evidence? What is the Government's responsibility in the matter? In the event of citizens taking out an action against the City of London Corporation—because they believe, for example, that its electoral procedures are incompatible with European law, the case would ultimately end up in Strasbourg. What would be the position of the British Government then?

Mr. McDonnell: May I take my hon. Friend back to his previous statement? He alleged that the City of London Corporation had not published the evidence on the basis of which an oral statement was made in the House to the effect that the Bill complies with the ECHR. The argument in the clause is extremely specific: the Government should make that statement. Under the new procedure suggested by the Government in their parliamentary answer, the onus is still on the promoters of the Bill to make the statement—a written statement. So far, we have been given only an oral statement, with no evidence to back it up. The Government's procedure would at least elicit a written statement; at some stage, I hope that the procedure will elicit the publication of the legal advice endorsing the statement.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The Minister made a series of important points in her speech. She pointed out that the rule that, in future, compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 has to apply to all Bills, including private Bills such as this, was an important and welcome step forward. My hon. Friend may recall that, when I intervened on the Minister, I had misunderstood her statement. I thought that she had said that the Government had examined the Bill, and that their Law Officers had okayed it in respect of human rights legislation. However, she specifically and categorically said that that was not the case, and that the Government had not necessarily endorsed the Bill as compatible with the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. It is therefore important that the House should reconsider the Bill's compatibility. As we continue our debate on new clause 2 and on amendment No. 11—

Mr. McDonnell: I apologise for again referring to an earlier statement made by my hon. Friend, but we should not exaggerate the import of the Minister's statement. Of course, I welcome it but the written answer itself—which I have only just gratefully received from the Minister— states:
In future when Private Bills are deposited, promoters will be asked—
there is no duty: promoters will be asked—
to undertake a full assessment.


A Minister will then make a statement. The promoters will be asked to make a statement; there seems to be no legal duty—unless the Minister wants to intervene on that point. Private Bills will continue to fall outside the procedure.

Mr. Corbyn: I understand that point. However, in the Minister's defence, I imagine that she would reply that the Government could do no more than ask the promoters to provide a certificate of compatibility because at that stage Ministers would have no power to secure compliance. I believe that the procedures of the House will have to be changed to ensure compatibility with the convention. Those who have been Members of this place for longer than me may confirm this: it could not be done by ministerial request, because then is a separation of ministerial and parliamentary powers. Although I welcome the Minister's view and her intention, one would assume that the Government's support for a private Bill would be dependent on that request having been met. That is all that the Government would ha re the power to do; they would have no power to enforce the request or to require it as a duty—only to make it. It would be incumbent on the House to alter its own procedures in that matter.

Mr. McDonnell: Before anyone is misled on this point, let us be clear about the fact that the Government are asking the promoter to comply. If the promoter does not comply, there is no power of enforcement—no action can be taken to prevent the promotion of legislation in the House; it would still be for the House to decide whether it went ahead. All that we shall receive is a statement from a Minister to the effect that the promoters have refused to adhere to the procedure; there is no duty—it is only a request.

Mr. Corbyn: As the Minister would be making a request—I take the burden of the parliamentary answer that we have received to be that the Government are now making that request of the promoters—in the event of the promoters' not acceding to that request, it seems to me incumbent on the House to refuse the Bill and to support the new clause, which would require that degree of compatibility.
I return to the point that I was trying to make earlier. There is a problem in relation to the compliance of the Bill with the human rights legislation. That problem arises from the proposed electoral system and method of voting proposed. The Bill would give corporate entities an unfair advantage over individual citizens, whereas the convention specifically says that the basis of any democratic process must be the individual person, voting secretly in a free and fair election. I am not convinced that a vote given to a corporation, albeit in some cases shared among the head office employees of that corporation, amounts to what one would consider to be a normal free and fair election.
Many of us who live in the boroughs surrounding the City of London believe that it would be much better if the whole thing was run in the same way as a normal local government body.
The Bill is a throwback—

Mr. McDonnell: Does my hon. Friend agree, as someone who represents a constituency on the borders of,

or in close proximity to the City, that at each stage the City has rejected amendments that would have enabled the citizens of the surrounding boroughs to vote—even though the City has an influence on some of the services that those boroughs provide?

Mr. Corbyn: Not only does the City have an influence on local services by virtue of its proximity, its planning decisions and all that goes with them, such as traffic generation and employment, but, following the break-up of the Greater London council, the City has enormous influence on large parts of London through its housing policy and the estates that it owns or the large areas of open space—such as Hampstead heath—that it manages on behalf of the people of London. There is a question there of wider accountability.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed. In a sense, the House has already expressed a view on the question of compatibility with human rights legislation because, by refusing to pass a closure motion, it has enabled the debate to continue. Thus it is essential that the debate go its full course; that we hear from the promoter of the Bill, if he may speak again, about the concerns about applicability; and, above all, that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock should have an opportunity to address the House once again in reply to the debate.
The House has had a long record of electoral reform. The great Reform Act of 1832 was designed to get rid of the non-existent voters. Subsequent pieces of legislation all moved in the direction of the individual secret ballot. We have here the opposite of that: the canonisation of the idea of the business vote. I am worried that, if we pass the Bill in its current form, we shall end up promoting the idea of a business vote in future. Any other local government area that had a mind to do so could then promote that principle by means of the private legislation procedure.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I hope that my hon. Friend is not naive enough—I know that he is not—to believe that it is possible that this gang of people in the City will accept the idea that the Bill has got to be compatible with the human rights legislation, and will say, "Oh dear, oh dear; we have just heard that we must make it fit and proper and in accordance with human rights." The last thing that these people, who are fiddling the vote left, right and centre, will do is say, "We had better incorporate human rights legislation." It will be done only by getting rid of the Bill and telling them exactly what they have to do.

Mr. Corbyn: In my view, the compatibility of the Bill with the human rights principle of one member, one vote would be as extraordinary as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. The suggestion that there is anything democratic about the proposals is ludicrous. I say to my hon. Friend that the convention is our defence of free and fair elections, as it is a way of trying to change the Bill. I am sure that he would agree that it is important that the House look again at the principles behind the Bill, and that new clause 2, which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and I tabled, gives us the opportunity to do so.
I do not want to detain the House too long on this matter, because other hon. Members have spoken at some length on it, and the Bill's sponsor made an lengthy intervention.

Mr. Skinner: In trying to get the question of the human rights compatibility within the ambit of the Bill, my hon. Friend has not mentioned that there is a body of people—I think it is called the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—whose job it is to spend a lot of taxpayers' money trotting around the world, telling eastern European countries how to get democracy in the future. Has he told any of its members that their work is being undermined? Has he called on them to say, "Look here, this Bill is not compatible with human rights, but you're going across there, telling them what a wonderful set-up we've got in Britain."? We have got democracy coming out of our earholes in the House of Commons; we have got none in the Lords, and we have now got the business vote in the City of London. Frankly, I am not against undermining the foundation's work, because it is a great big junket, but how on earth can the Government say that they are teaching the east Europeans how to be democratic, while pushing through this tinpot Bill, which is not even compatible with human rights legislation? There are four questions to answer.

Mr. Corbyn: I understood that there were rather more than four questions to answer. I am sure that my hon. Friend is not trying to undermine the work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—nothing could be further from his mind than that. However, for £1.80, it could go to the City of London and examine the process, or it could come into the Chamber to do so. That would represent the cheapest possible examination of democratic procedures anywhere in the world.
There are some important points in what my hon. Friend says, one of which is that if the House were to pass the Bill and if it were enacted, any citizen could object and take out a case concerning his or her denial of human rights or the discrimination in favour of corporations under the Bill. They would take their case through the British courts and, ultimately, to Strasbourg. At that point, the Attorney-General, as the Government's chief Law Officer, would have to decide the Government's position because he or she would have to represent the British Government in that process. What possible defence could they offer for the Bill? How would they explain the curious nature of events in which, as a result of an accident of dates, even though this country was a signatory to the convention, because the Human Rights Act 1998 had not been passed, no statement of compatibility was proposed? The Government have said that they will request compatibility in future. It is presumably up to the House to change its Standing Orders to ensure that all legislation, including private Bills, must be compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The Bill's sponsor said in an intervention that he was confident that the leading counsel's opinion he had received was that the Bill was compatible. I do not know who that leading counsel was. I have no idea what were the terms of the request made to the leading counsel. Apparently, we shall not be told of the content of leading

counsel's opinion. The very least that the House can do is to support the new clause that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and I tabled, perhaps for no other reason than that those hon. Members who support the Bill are not prepared to explain in detail in the House how they can say that they believe the Bill to be compatible with the convention.

Mr. McDonnell: The reason for supporting the new clause is surely that it would place the onus on the Government; it involves a requirement, not a request. All we have been offered so far is a simple request to the promoters—a feeble solution. The new clause would specifically place a requirement on the Government's broad shoulders.

Mr. Corbyn: It would indeed put the requirement on the Government, but it would also provide them with a defence for the future. If they were called to Strasbourg to defend the Bill in future, they would at least know what they were defending. At the moment, they do not know that, because we have no idea how on earth the sponsor manages to conclude that the Bill is compatible.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover intervened earlier, he made the serious point that we are keen on sending delegations all around the world to talk about democracy and independent, free and fair elections. How on earth do we explain to an audience in the Czech Republic that this is the mother of Parliaments and the centre of democracy if we pass legislation that represents the opposite of those principles?

Mr. Skinner: I am trying my best to fathom why the promoters have not seized on the incorporation of this new Human Rights Act. Is it perhaps because this Bill started on its journey before that legislation was passed?

Mr. Corbyn: No.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend says no. Is it possible that it would be better for the Bill to be dropped completely? Then, if it did come back incorporating the human rights aspect—none of us wants it to come back—at least the promoters would be on firmer ground? I do not want to give them any opportunity to do that, but what does my hon. Friend think? Is that part of the explanation?

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has put several points to me. I recall his Herculean efforts over the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Bill. There is a strange procedure in the House that if Government legislation has not passed through all its stages by the end of a parliamentary Session, it is lost. If by the end of a Parliament, and surely we are moving towards one, all legislation has not been passed, that is the end of it until it is reintroduced. We lost the Criminal Justice Bill before the 1992 general election and then it came back. I rather wish that it had not, but it did. The peculiarity is that private Bills, provided that they have had a successful carry-over motion before the dissolution of the Parliament or the end of a Session may continue. That seems absolutely bizarre. This Bill has life after death.

Mr. Dismore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Corbyn: I will give way in a moment.
My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bolsover asked why there was no compatibility certificate. A year ago there was a whole day debate, which I did not attend, on the compatibility or otherwise of this legislation with the convention and the Human Rights Act. So the promoters have had fully one year to examine its compatibility and return with an appropriate certificate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Corbyn: I give way to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have to report that on the Division on the closure the numbers reported in the Aye Lobby should have been 100, not 99. May I personally say that I am sorry for the mistake? The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has kindly said that he joins me in my apologies?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I will deal with the point of order first. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to continue?

Mr. Bottomley: No, I have concluded.

Madam Deputy Speaker: May I ask the Tellers please to resume their places?
In the circumstances reported by the Tellers for the Ayes I now direct in accordance with precedent that the numbers be corrected in the Votes and Proceedings. Furthermore, I now have no alternative but to put the question.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will understand my dismay and irritation. I explained earlier that I would be one of those who would suffer if the closure motion was passed. Ninety-nine people were reported to the House as having voted Aye, but you have just had a further report from the Tellers. May I draw your attention to the fact that during the Maastricht debate there was a reported drawn vote? On that occasion, the Government Whip was subsequently found to have erred, but that was or the following day and that fact allowed people to examine the written word. That is what I would call a Florida ballot. We have not been able to do that in this case, and I think that this Division is premature. I want to place on record my view that there should have been, at the very least, a re-calling of that disputed Division. We have here a travesty of a Parliament that has been rumbled by the inefficiencies of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no alternative but to take the word of the Tellers on this matter. Despite the

precedent to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the precedent that I am using has been used on many occasions.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It should be placed on record that there were 99 Aye votes in the first Division—then there was either a hand recount or something else. It sounds to me as though those votes represented 99 bodies and a dimpled chad.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view, but I am accepting the comments of the Tellers.
May I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

The House having divided: Ayes 22, Noes 90.

Division No. 50]
[6.18 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Iddon, Dr Brian


Banks, Tony
Linton, Martin


Barnes, Harry
McDonnell, John


Burstow, Paul
Mackinlay, Andrew


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
McWalter, Tony



Pound, Stephen


Chidgey, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Skinner, Dennis


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Stunell, Andrew


Dismore, Andrew



Foster, Don (Bath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Gerrard, Neil
Mr. John Cryer and


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


NOES


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heppell, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Baldry, Tony
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Beggs, Roy
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bercow, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jenkins, Brian


Brady, Graham
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter



Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)



King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lansley, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Letwin, Oliver


Colman, Tony
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Cran, James
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Cranston, Ross
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Dowd, Jim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Duncan, Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McNulty, Tony


Evans, Nigel
MacShane, Denis


Flight, Howard
Maples, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
May, Mrs Theresa


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Merron, Gillian


Fox, Dr Liam
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Gale, Roger
Moss, Malcolm


Garnier, Edward
Norman, Archie


George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Paice, James


Green, Damian
Pike, Peter L


Greenway, John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Prior, David


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Randall, John


Hammond, Philip
Robathan, Andrew






Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Tyrie, Andrew


St Aubyn, Nick
Walter, Robert


Soley, Clive
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Spring, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wilkinson, John


Swayne, Desmond
Willetts, David


Syms, Robert



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Touhig, Don
Mr. Peter Bottomley and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. David Amess.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the events of the 25 minutes since the previous vote was recounted, may I ask that some formal report be given to the House on the events that took place, how they occurred and how the situation can be rectified in future? I believe that yet another discrepancy has occurred: 99 or 100 hon. Members voted for closure, and suddenly the number voting has dropped to 90. There should be a precise analysis of what occurred today.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The explanation is that I made a mistake.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has had the answer to his point of order.

Mr. Pound: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I associate myself with the comment of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley)? There were two of us telling. If mistakes were made, they were made by both of us.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps when we undertake an investigation into the events that occurred tonight, we should consider how we can overcome the levels of fallibility that have been identified and what mechanism we can put in place to address the problem.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have heard from both hon. Members who were Tellers, and they have explained to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington how the mistake occurred.

Mr. Mackinlay: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have heard from the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), who confessed to having made a mistake. In fact, 100 hon. Members made a mistake. When we count the Division list tomorrow, as I intend to do, line by line, Florida-style, we will see all those on the payroll, all those on the Opposition Front Bench, all the people who line up with the undemocratic Corporation of the—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may hold that view, but I and the House have accepted the verdict of the tellers.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An interesting situation has developed. The House

heard from the Minister that the Government would in future request certification under the Human Rights Act, yet the House has specifically rejected consideration of the applicability of the Act to the Bill. Where does the Bill stand in respect of legislation already passed by the House—the Human Rights Act?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the debate on new clause 2 has been concluded and a vote taken. We must now proceed to the rest of the business of the House.

Clause 2

INTERPRETATION

Mr. McDonnell: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
'business electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(c) with responsibility for electing the business voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 1, line 18, at end insert—
'employees' electoral college" means a body comprising voters appointed under section 3(1)(d) with responsibility for electing the employees' voters entitled to vote in ward elections.'.
No. 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out from 'person' to second 'a' and insert—
'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by'.
No. 56, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out from 'person' to 'ordinarily' in line 34 and insert—
'elected from the business electoral college comprising voters appointed by the qualifying bodies which are'.
No. 22, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(d) is a person elected from the employees' electoral college comprising voters who are employees of a qualifying body which is ordinarily in occupation for relevant purposes as owner or tenant of the whole or part of a hereditament situated in that ward which is shown in the local non-domestic rating list as having a rateable value of not less than £200.'.
No. 58, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) the business electoral college shall reflect the range of business activity within the City, and shall comprise relevant business operational constituencies for which a qualifying body must register based upon its principal business operation; and the proportion of voters to be elected from a business operational constituency will be determined in proportion to the number of qualifying bodies registering for a particular business operational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
No. 57, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(1B) the employees electoral college shall reflect the range of occupations operating within the City of London, and shall comprise relevant occupational constituencies for which an employee must register based upon his/her principal occupation as defined under the DfEE Standard Occupational Classification Major Groups; and the proportion of voters to be elected from an occupational constituency shall be determined in proportion to the number of employees registering for a particular occupational constituency in relation to the total registrations.'.
No. 23, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(1C) The number of business voters elected from the business electoral college shall be no more than 2,000.'.


No. 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(1D) The number of employee voters elected from the employees' electoral college shall be no more than 2,000.'.
No. 59, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
'(2A)—

(1) For the election of voters to represent the business operational and occupational constituencies within the electoral colleges, each vote in the poll shall be a single transferable vote.
(2) A single transferable vote is a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency; and
(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not needed to give a prior choice to the necessary quota of votes or when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.


No. 29, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, at end insert 'subject to subsections (1C) and (1D) above'.

Mr. McDonnell: The amendments are complex. Bearing in mind the evidence of the fallibility of hon. Members this evening, perhaps we should investigate the amendments in detail, so that the House will understand and be able to follow the debate.
Amendment No. 7 is a proposal to introduce a business electoral college.

Mr. Skinner: A what?

Mr. McDonnell: A business electoral college. I accept that the proposals offend some hon. Members. I shall come on to the justification for them in due course. At this stage, I simply want to put the detail on the record and explain it to hon. Members. If they have difficulty calculating to 100, they will have more difficulty understanding the complexities of my proposals.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend propose to describe the amendments one by one in order, or will he go through them all generally and then go back through them in detail? Several Members want to hear about them in detail, especially the first one. Will my hon. Friend deal with the others first, or come back to amendment No. 7?

Mr. McDonnell: As semantic issues are at stake, I should like to go through the amendments in order initially, return to the explanation of their import, and go on to the justification for them. If my hon. Friend is happy with that approach, I shall proceed, but if he can suggest an alternative one, I shall proceed with that.

Mr. Dismore: That approach is a little confusing. When my hon. Friend introduced the amendments, he said that he would talk about a business electoral college. I thought that the group of amendments would create an electoral college from a series of different functions. Would it not be better for my hon. Friend first to describe in principle what an electoral college is about before talking about the mechanics of which bits go where?

Mr. McDonnell: Okay, we shall start with that approach, if my hon. Friend is happy with that, and then return to the detail of how the legislation is affected.

Mr. Corbyn: Perhaps it would be better if my hon. Friend explained all the amendments, as there is clearly a jigsaw that has to be put together.

Mr. McDonnell: I am tempted to put the matter of the approach to the vote. However, given that we probably would not add up the votes correctly, I suggest that we proceed with the approach that I originally proposed.
Amendment No. 7 introduces a proposal for a business electoral college, comprising voters appointed with responsibility for electing voters who will represent the business community in the City of London Corporation.

Mr. Skinner: I know that my hon. Friend has been meeting the promoters and that he is strong-willed on the issue, but is he telling me that the business college will be based on the model of so many trade unions? Will there be a bloc vote? Is that where we are going? That is the only sort of college vote that I am acquainted with. The business of fitting in with demands sounds a bit dodgy to me. I hope that my hon. Friend will not disappoint me, or will at least make me feel a bit better about the matter. He has not been meeting the promoters too often, has he?

Mr. McDonnell: I assure my hon. Friend that I have had one meeting with the City of London Corporation, at which an offer of an amendment was made. I subsequently declined that offer—or, rather, did not respond to it.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talked about the particular electoral college of which he is aware. However, the one that we have all seen most recently is in the United States, and it has produced an appalling travesty of democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend's proposals will not reflect in any way the electoral college procedures and systems that operate in the United States, albeit with a different breakdown.

Mr. McDonnell: I accept that there is a similarity in the concept of an electoral college. The Bill is into its third year and I have sought to amend it for two and a half years. The principal element of introducing a full democratic vote based on one person, one vote has clearly been rejected at earlier stages. In addition, when we tried to introduce the concept of one person, one vote based on a residential vote plus the vote of the workers themselves, that was rejected. This is my humble and simple attempt—no, I mean my humble but complex attempt—to try to reach a form of compromise.
The attempt is to seek amendments—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will enjoy this statement—allowing all the stakeholders in the City of London Corporation to be actively engaged in, and have rights and responsibilities to engage in, the political processes in the area covered by the corporation.

Mr. Skinner: I knew it. My hon. Friend has fallen for all this jargon. Stakeholders? Come on. What is the next phrase? New deal?

Mr. McDonnell: Given the lateral thinking in which we have had to engage when constructing the amendments, I have tried to suggest that the Bill should be entitled the "New City of London (Ward Elections) Bill".

Mr. Eric Forth: New city, new Labour.

Mr. McDonnell: Exactly. By following the philosophical trend that has been developed under new


Labour to ensure that, in accordance with the Will Hutton approach, all stakeholders participate in arrangements for their areas, I have devised a compromise proposal.

Mr. Skinner: There are other words that should now be used, apart from "stakeholders". Has my hon. Friend turned his attention to words such as "clients", "customers" and "products"? It is not only stakeholders. This new language is about different things altogether. If my hon. Friend wants to move away from ordinary, run-of-the-mill, one-person-one-vote arrangements, he must think in terms not only of stakeholders, but of clients, customers, products, inputs and outputs. Has he turned his mind to such terms?

Mr. McDonnell: It is that form of synergy that I am seeking to address.

Mr. Dismore: I am a little concerned that the amendments do not address those concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) made a good point. We are considering a proposal for an electoral college that, as I understand it, includes businesses, residents and employees. Where are customers represented? We are told time and again that the City is the powerhouse of the economy and has customers throughout the world, and not only locally. Are not those customers represented in some of the City's work? The college does not seem to provide for such representation.

Mr. McDonnell: It is true that the recipients of City services are not provided for. I tabled an amendment to ensure that any business voter who was elected to represent a business was chosen on the basis of a vote by shareholders or by members of the organisation in question. Unfortunately, that amendment was not selected for consideration. To overcome that, I have tried to ensure that the definition of the business college and the employees' electoral college ranges across the many organisations that provide such a variety of services in the area, as well as those who create the wealth—the workers themselves. I have sought to reflect all the different trades and professions and have proposed the best compromise that I can offer. Hon. Members will know that I always seek to ensure such compromise.

Mr. Dismore: I am sorry to keep intervening on my hon. Friend, but I am concerned about his remarks. As I understand it, in order to vote, employees must work for somebody who holds a City property, the value of which is above a certain rateable level. Many people in the City will not be in such a position, including those who travel about delivering things or who work from market stalls. Would such people be excluded from the provisions? I cannot imagine a market stall having the required rateable value.

Mr. McDonnell: That is why the proposal is a compromise. It attempts to offer the corporation some movement and does not seek to flood its operations with a work-force vote that will overcome all the vested interests that meet in various masonic lodges within the corporation area. It is a compromise that would introduce a system in which all interests in the area would be represented.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend obviously listened carefully to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the

Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) in his intervention, but I am still anxious about whether people who work in Westminster as street vendors, newsagents or street traders, or who do other jobs in that sector, are to be excluded. Will there be an opportunity for further discussion with such people? A right to participate in the peculiar elections that are proposed should apply to everybody who works in the City, irrespective of whether they happen to be employed by a big business.

Mr. McDonnell: I shall not be set up as class traitor of the month. My position is clear. Under my original proposal, the electorate would compromise the residents and workers. Basically, the proposal was formulated on the Petrograd, Soviet model. It was as simple as that, and I do not know why it was rejected. I think that that rejection was unreasonable and that the proposal would have worked. It would have put us in a revolutionary situation in advance of many other cities in the world. However, it was rejected, and this is an attempt at a compromise. I accept that some petty bourgeois elements will not be represented in the electoral college because of their lack of stakeholding in the community, based on rateable value.

Mr. Dismore: I am concerned about what my hon. Friend has just said. I assume from his definition of "employee" that people who are self-employed will also be excluded. There is a great trend in the City for people to work on a self-employed, consulting basis, and they are not included in the definition. Is my hon. Friend attempting to exclude the self-employed as well?

Mr. McDonnell: My view is that the self-employed would come within the business electoral college. They would have a say over the eventual voters in the corporation area. That would give them their conduit into the democratic processes of the corporation. However, I accept that the issue potentially involves social inclusion based on the high level of rateable value set in the Bill. Again, that is a compromise. I have taken the original figure of £200 proposed by the corporation. I am happy for amendments to be tabled on that.

Mr. Dismore: Another group of people would potentially be excluded by the definition of "employee", and that is office holders. For example, police officers employed by the City of London police are holders of the office of constable but are not technically employees. The rateable value of their police station may be more than £200, but although they are City workers they would be excluded. Other office holders employed by the City in mediaeval positions are not technically employees but work in the City. Where do they fit into the picture?

Mr. McDonnell: The Bill refers to office holders in their occupation of individual premises in the City. Assurances were given by the corporation in the previous debates that office holders would be included. Clause 2 on interpretation refers to
occupation", in relation to any hereditament—
we have discussed how hereditament should be pronounced, and I go for the early French version—
or part of a hereditament, means occupation by personal physical presence there and, in the case of a qualifying body … through a holder of any paid or unpaid office for the performance of whose functions.


Therefore, office holders are included, and would be under my business college definition because of the definition in clause 2. If I am mistaken on that, the corporation's representative, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), could advise us. Office holders would become a qualifying body and be part of the business electoral college.

Mr. Dismore: May I get the position entirely clear? As I understand it, that definition relates to business premises, and my hon. Friend just said that office holders would qualify as part of the business college. My question was why they do not qualify as part of the employee college because, to all intents and purposes, they are employees, not businesses. I take his point about self-employed people coming under the business definition, although some of them may question that. I do not see why people in the category that I have mentioned should be classed as businesses rather than employees.

Mr. McDonnell: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The employee definition enables people to be nominated if they are employed by a qualifying body. The office holder who is employed by the qualifying body could come under the employees electoral college. That is my understanding of the amendment, but I am open to further discussion and clarification, and perhaps amendment at a later stage to define that.
There was a discussion at a previous stage about not excluding organisations, such as voluntary organisations and churches, that had office holders located in the City. In my view, they would come under one of these electoral colleges, either as office holders or employees. Office holders in that instance would be part of the business college, but that is open to definition.

Mr. Skinner: Has my hon. Friend seen a copy of The Times today? There is a big article by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who says that in the new era of politics things will not be centralised as they were in the past. According to him, some of the old establishments will fade away, and there will be a lot of voluntary work and so forth. Apparently, there will be an army of 100,000 volunteers.
Has my hon. Friend been far-seeing enough to think about that when he has thought about the electoral college? Has he thought about the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Women's Institute? I am sure that those organisations want to play their part, and if we are moving into this new era he cannot afford to leave them out.
There should also be a section—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is quite a lengthy intervention.

Mr. Skinner: There should be a white van man section.

Mr. McDonnell: Perhaps I should have begun with the detail and gone on to the principle.

Mr. Dismore: I said that.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend was right. I shall take his advice in the future.
I think my definitions of the various electoral colleges are flexible enough to enable voluntary organisations to come under what could become a business electoral college, but will probably—and more importantly—be a section of the work force comprising volunteers, which will therefore be an employees' electoral college.
Before we engage in a grand debate on the principles, let me say something about the technical details of the amendments. Apparently an attack was made on "white van men", many of whom live in my constituency.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was fighting for their rights.

Mr. McDonnell: I accept that. I am referring to the alleged attack by me. There is no one who will not defend the right of white van men and women to vote for members of the City of London Corporation. Indeed, many who operate in the City live in my constituency.

Mr. Corbyn: Has my hon. Friend considered the role of contract workers employed in the City? An army of people working there leave before the office workers arrive—those who work for contract cleaning companies. Many have pretty poor working conditions, and I think that their rights should be recognised.

Mr. McDonnell: I think that contract workers would come under the definition of employee, but I would be happy to tighten that definition to ensure that they are referred to specifically.
I understand the problem. A particular section of the work force is vulnerable because its method of operation is open to exploitation, and it therefore requires representation more than those in more stable professions.

Mr. Dismore: I question my hon. Friend's assurance. It seems that, according to his definition, such people would qualify for the employee category only if the employer was based in the City. Employers' base of operation—this certainly applies to many contract cleaning companies—may be some distance away; they may bus people into the City in order to keep down their overheads. Effectively, my hon. Friend's amendment is disfranchising the army of workers referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. McDonnell: That can be easily remedied by a further amendment, which I shall be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend and with the corporation. That simple amendment would enable an employee to be defined by the rateable value of the agency with which the contract had been taken out. In other words, employees who served a particular firm, when the contract was with that firm, would be enfranchised by its rateable value.
I accept that there is a problem, and I am open to suggestions; but I will go to the wall to defend the principle of the electoral college in this context, especially given my experience of the electoral college in the election of the London Mayor, which proved so fruitful at the end of the day.

Mr. Dismore: My hon. Friend mentioned the electoral college in the context of the election of the Mayor.


Will the same electoral college be used for the election of the Lord Mayor of London, who, of course, is someone entirely different?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we are straying rather wide of the amendment.

Mr.McDonnell: Let us be clear. The basis of my proposals is to establish electoral colleges, which will then enable the election of the City Corporation. In turn, through some form of divine guidance, a mayor is appointed, so it will be a form of representative democracy.
It being Seven o'clock, further consideration stood adjourned.
Bill to be further considered on Thursday 18 January.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Motion made,
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr.Touhig.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April,11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July.

Hon. Members: Object.

HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made,
That—
the Lords Message [12th July 2000] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and the following Standing Order be made:

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Commitee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
(2) The Committee shall consider—

(a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);
(b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

(3) The Committee shall report to the House—

(a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
(b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.
(4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

(a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or
(b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or
(c) that the order should not be approved,

and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.
(5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.
(6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(7) The committee shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and
(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

Hon. Members: Object.

Gas and Electricity Supplies

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Touhig.]

7 pm

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Like most people, I have always despised rip-off salesmen, whether it be the person who persuades people to part with money for something that is not worth what they hand over, or one who gets people to buy when they do not want to buy, or when it is not in their interest to buy. I have always been wary of the door-to-door salesmen or the street-corner seller, but many consumers are not. All too often, those rogue salesmen prey on the most vulnerable and poor sections of society. For as long as there have been markets, there have been rogue salesmen. They have always been seen as a menace but, these days, we expect the authorities to stamp out that activity, difficult as it is.
Mis-selling is bad enough for any goods or services, but when it happens with the essentials for life, such as gas or electricity, the power sources for every home in the land, it is unacceptable. Given the history of salesmanship, we should have expected mis-selling once gas and electricity supply became open to competition. It is happening.
I highlight some of the evidence that my constituents have brought to me and that I have discovered. Towards the end of last year, I identified some 17 cases in my constituency, in little more than a couple of weeks. The most common trick is the unsolicited telephone call, after which, whatever the consumer has said, he discovers some two to three weeks later that his gas or electricity supply has changed to the new company under an alleged oral agreement.
I give the example of one pensioner who wrote to me at the end of October:
Can you help me please? Some time ago a company rang me and wanted to supply my gas as against my then supplier British Gas. To get rid of them I said I would look at their offer if they sent me all the details, then forgot all about them. Two weeks later I had a letter from my supplier regretting that I left them.
That constituent was transferred to NPower without his knowledge or consent.
Another elderly constituent had the same experience with PowerGen, even though he had told the caller that he was definitely not interested. Another 83-year-old man, too deaf to engage in a proper telephone conversation, told a sales representative that he could not hear and asked for some papers to be sent, so that he could read about the offer. He was switched to PowerGen, again without his permission or knowledge.
That constituent's daughter made a number of calls to complain, but was told that the switch would go ahead as authority had been given on the telephone. Eventually, after I got involved, an apology was sent by the company. In fact, I learned that, just two days ago—I suspect after the existence of this debate became known—the gentleman received some £250 from PowerGen and two free videos. Whatever else the debate achieves, I hope that it has achieved something for that constituent.
The worst case that I came across involved an 84-year-old man with a couple of hearing aids and several illnesses. He was visited by a rep from Southern Electric, who asked whether he could read the meter. He then

asked whether he could sit down and fill in the rest of the meter-reading form, and asked several questions. Finally, he asked my constituent to sign to say that the meter had been read. He did. Of course, he later discovered that he had signed a contract to switch his supplier. Thankfully, that salesman was dismissed by Southern Electric.
Another type of scam that I have discovered involved a constituent who bought a property in Leicestershire for use by her student youngster. She wanted it to be supplied by British Gas because of its terms and agreed that supply be transferred to that company from the existing company. A few weeks later, she learned that British Gas was not going to supply her because someone had transferred the property to another company. British Gas did not know who had done that, but later told her—off the record—that it knew about the scam. It said that a salesman would watch for empty properties and then fill in a transfer form, using the name of the previous owner. The gas supply is then transferred to the new company. When my constituent contacted Ofgem, she was told that supply to the property had been transferred to NPower. That company said that it had been transferred in error.
I put something in the local press about these complaints to alert my constituents to the problem, and the story achieved good coverage. However, I was eventually approached by another man—not a victim of mis-selling, but a salesman for NPower who had seen activities such as I had described being carried out. He could not stand it any more, and he wanted to blow the whistle. He gave me an insight into how such companies worked.
My informant was able to confirm all the tricks that I have described, but he also told me of how salesmen target low-income areas, where lots of people have pre-payment meters. Salesmen are not supposed to sign up people on such meters, and no commission is offered for such business. However, many people with pre-payment meters are the easiest to convince that they should change supplier.
I was told that salesmen would not tick the boxes on the application form that ask potential customers about pre-payment meters and preferred methods of payment. They fill in the rest of the form and get the resident to sign it. When they have left the property, they tick the box for quarterly payments.
Commission paid to salesmen cannot be clawed back after 60 days. Salesmen rely on the fact that residents are unlikely to discover that they have been transferred to the new company for quarterly payment until they receive the quarterly bill some 90 days later. Residents will have been paying by pre-payment card for that period, and are very angry when they receive a bill in addition. However, the salesman involved by that time will have got away with the scam.
Representatives of Ofgem told me this morning that the company did not see how that could happen. However, I checked with my informant and he assured me that salesmen working for his old company are involved in that scam, and that they are earning commission in that unlawful way.
Salesmen also give the impression that people who buy from NPower are buying directly from the generator, and therefore saving money. No comparative rates or prices are given to customers, and they are not quoted in the presentation pack. Sometimes, salesmen know that customers will pay more if they change suppliers.
The commission structure used by some companies merely gives salesmen the incentive to sell more deals, rather than solid deals. They get £7 a deal if they sell four or five contracts a day, but £12 if they can get the number of deals up to nine or more. Many salesmen are employed through an agency, which means that there is less control and a greater likelihood of sharp practice.
My informant told me that he attended training sessions, at which he could see that all the members in his group knew what was going on. That included the supervising managers, some of whom had been recruited from door-to-door salesmen. The managers are paid by means of a huge commission, which encourages them to reach a certain target every week. Some of them do not care how that target is reached. It is clear that, in some cases, managers collude with corrupt salesmen to make victims of customers.
The best proof that salesmen know what is going on emerged when the manager of the group of salesmen operating in my locality saw the local press coverage of the problem. He took the article to the next sales meeting and told the salesmen to stay away from Lowestoft for a few weeks until the MP settled down.
There is a culture of mis-selling, and salesmen have their own language. Apparently, the term "one-legger" describes a contract that is signed as easy as pie on the doorstep, and for which the salesman does not have to supply any information because he has one foot in the door. The term "blagging" is used to describe a salesman saying anything that he likes to secure a contract. In fact, when I was doing the research for this debate, an Officer of the House told me that his wife had recently been told on the telephone that British Gas had gone bust. The caller asked whether she would like to change her supplier. That must be an example of blagging.
What is being done to tackle the problem, and what more needs to be done? Is Ofgem effective in that respect? I met representatives from Ofgem this morning and listened to what they had to say. As I said in my introduction, for as long as there have been markets, there have been rogue salesmen. Therefore, as soon as the supply of gas and electricity was open to competition, we should have expected this. It is astounding that the previous Government put so little in place to protect the consumer when gas was deregulated in 1996.
It is not surprising that in 1998 Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council received 45,000 complaints from the public about the transfer from one supplier to another. That figure comes from the National Audit Office report of May 1999. At that time, the NAO was concerned about doorstep and telephone selling techniques. By that time, electricity had been deregulated as well and some companies were selling both. The greater the scope for a bargain, the greater the scope for the rogue salesman. We know that new licensing conditions to include rules covering markets were introduced by the regulator in 1998, but the 1999 NAO report found that little monitoring of compliance was carried out.
As my constituents' complaints show, the problem is still alive and kicking. I learned from Ofgem this morning that complaints against companies had halved last year and that they represented only a small percentage of the new contracts signed. I believe that Ofgem is

underestimating the complaints because some people complain directly to the companies and some go elsewhere. Whatever the figure, it is not much consolation to those who are tricked or inconvenienced.
I heard today from Suffolk county council trading standards office that it is still very concerned at the scale of mis-selling in Suffolk. I have no doubt that Ofgem takes complaints seriously and investigates them thoroughly as, no doubt, will the new organisation Energywatch. However, it seems to be involved in reactive monitoring. Notwithstanding the enhancements of the rules announced yesterday, I should like to see stronger measures in place. I should like to see a standard established to ensure that Energywatch responds to complaints urgently.
In taking up my constituents' complaints and studying their correspondence, I have found that the utility companies and Ofgem are often slow to respond and lacked urgency. Every salesman should be obliged to provide in writing the free telephone number of Energywatch and should point out to customers that they can obtain comparative information on prices before they sign the contract. We should insist on a written contract before the supply is changed. There should not be oral or telephone contracts because it is not like buying a concert ticket with a credit card.
There should be conformity of sanctions against rogue salesmen. Some companies take action, whatever that might be, and some retrain them. I believe that, in all cases, dismissal should be the norm and that further sanctions should be applied where necessary. There should be a blacklist. I was told of four NPower salesmen who were sacked and simply joined Eastern Electricity. All companies should conform to enable all customers to get a quick reversal when they realise that they have been tricked. There should be a standard minimum amount of compensation for each victim of mis-selling. When I discovered that my constituent got £250 from PowerGen, it made me think what might happen if everybody who complained received £250. It might focus the minds of the utility companies.
I wonder whether the order to give Ofgem the power to fine offending companies, which needs to be made under the Utilities Act 2000, can be introduced as quickly as possible. If companies know that tough new measures are coming in, they usually clean up their act in advance. That has not yet happened in all cases. Tougher action is needed. It is clear that the regulator has not yet brought all companies under proper control and that not all companies have their management and salesmen under proper control.
I am pleased that one of the companies I have mentioned today is being taken to task in a major way. Ofgem needs to set targets for a reduction in mis-selling complaints. During my meeting with Ofgem representatives this morning, they seemed reluctant to do that. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can encourage the regulator to set itself a target for reducing the number of complaints year by year until they are eliminated.
As I said before, the worst aspect is that the salesmen prey particularly on the vulnerable and the elderly. In the 1980s there were the double-glazing salesmen; in the 1990s there was mis-selling of pensions and mortgages. At the end of the millennium, in the past few years,


we have seen the mis-selling of utilities. It is the same type of villain and the same kind of menace to ordinary people in each case. They must be stamped out, and I hope that this debate will help that process a little.

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing the debate and on raising these very important issues. I also congratulate him on his success, because his constituents are already seeing the benefit of his activity on these matters. I will ensure that the regulatory authority, Ofgem, receives a copy of his comments so that it can take into account the sound common sense contained in his speech.
I share my hon. Friend's disdain for rogue salesmen. Sometimes the rogue salesman is regarded in this country as a bit of a lovable Arthur Daley figure when, in reality, he gives Arthur Daley a bad name. I feel strongly about mis-selling. Indeed, I began my ministerial career dealing with the mis-selling of personal pensions. I discovered that there is nothing quite so powerful as publicity. My hon. Friend has gone a long way this evening to drawing to the attention of consumers the activities of some companies.
I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about rogue salesmen, but my disdain is even greater for their managers. The existence of rogue salesmen means that people managing companies either knowingly fail to get a grip on what is going on or do not have the competence to know what is going on in the company's name, thereby blackening its name and reputation.
I am aware of continuing instances of company representatives using unacceptable sales practices. I fully share my hon. Friend's concern about the existence of such practices. I join him in the campaign to ensure that such practices are stamped out. Indeed, because of the Government's concern about such practices we introduced the Utilities Act 2000 to enhance the powers of Ofgem and give it a primary duty to protect the consumer and establish a new, stronger body—the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council, or Energywatch—to represent the consumer interest. That made a major change in the regulation of the energy sector in this country. Previously, the shareholder was all. To those who think that the shareholder should take precedence over the consumer, I say that consumers are shareholders, too, and vice versa. Any company that cannot look after its consumers will not fare well in today's aggressive, competitive business environment.
My hon. Friend asked when the order under the Utilities Act to give Ofgem the power to fine is likely to be introduced. That serious power will be vested in the regulator. I assure him that the necessary consultation period that was promised in this House before such a serious measure is introduced will begin within days. We will be in a position to lay the order very shortly. I know that he will wish companies to recognise that it is for them to pull up their socks and behave responsibly, rather than to have those powers used against them.
Resolving these issues is a difficult task and it will require a concentrated effort by Ofgem and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has had difficulty in getting timely responses from

Energywatch. I am sure that that will be noted by its new staff and new chair and that they will ensure an improvement in those targets. I shall certainly keep an eye on the situation—as indeed will the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
In mitigation of the present circumstances, I point out that, since the introduction of supply competition, 5.7 million customers—29 per cent. of the total�žhave switched their gas supplies from British Gas; 4.4 million—18 per cent. of the total—have switched electricity supply from their local public electricity company. Transfers continue to run at a high rate—280,000 gas transfers per month over the six months to September 2000, and 450,000 electricity transfers per month over the same period.
My hon. Friend has exposed some extremely nasty practices, but in September 2000 complaints about gas transfer process—including sales practices—stood at three per 1,000 registrations. That sounds like a small figure, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were one of the three, I am sure that you would feel deeply aggrieved. Constant pressure must be exerted to ensure that those complaints are reduced.
Complaints about electricity were running at two per 1,000 registrations. The message is clear: there is a continuing problem, and we take it seriously, but we must not lose sight of the fact that a competitive marketplace has meant significant benefits for consumers—in choice and in lower energy bills.
My hon. Friend referred to people with pre-payment meters. My anxiety is that such people have been less able to benefit from the price reductions. As we learned recently, in too many cases they still pay more for their electricity and gas because they cannot afford to set up direct debit arrangements, standing orders and so on to gain access to the reduced tariffs. I am well aware of those difficulties and was troubled to hear about examples of mis-selling to prepayment customers.
Although there is not much evidence that the situation is getting worse, my anxiety is that it is not getting better. We must constantly push for real progress. I agree with my hon. Friend that not every dissatisfied customer complains to the consumer bodies or to the regulator, but it is difficult for us to find out when complaints have been made to companies.
The regulator and the consumer council have the necessary powers to set conditions governing sales practices; Ofgem has taken those powers as part of its marketing licence conditions. It applied specific conditions to individual companies that failed to resolve problems in parts of their operations. However, one of the most powerful means of ensuring that companies behave themselves is to expose publicly what has been going on—as my hon. Friend has this evening—so that hon. Members and all members of society can make choices based on their knowledge of the practices of those companies.
Under the Utilities Act, there will shortly be powers to fine companies. Indeed, the GECC has the power to obtain and publish information about the quality of service, which it will use to encourage best practice; it will go back to my old favourite—naming and shaming poor performers. Those and other powers were the subject of intense scrutiny before and during the passage of the


Utilities Bill, in which my hon. Friend took quite an interest. Ofgem and the GECC have the tools, the resources and the commitment to do their job. Their powers go beyond those available in other sectors, because the provision of energy is so central to us all.
My hon. Friend makes the important point that when a light is shone on companies they improve their performance, but we must make sure that their performance continues to improve over time. Consumers must have knowledge of the redress available to them. That is a responsibility for Ofgem and the GECC, but a good company that is concerned about its consumers will ensure that they know how to complain and obtain redress; it will take those complaints very seriously indeed. Ofgem and the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council will be working with the companies to promote this enlightened self-interest, because that is what it is. It is about best practice—best standards in sales practices. This enlightened self-interest should be promoted by improving a range of the aspects of company performance, from sales practices to administration. I believe that that will benefit all consumers.
I know that my hon. Friend has already had, today, a meeting with the regulatory authority. I know that he has made his points to it very forcefully, because I have had a read-out of that meeting. However, unlike the dreadful cases that he has outlined today, there is much that is good in terms of ensuring that those who can least afford to pay for their energy get it at a more acceptable rate.
My hon. Friend has worked well with his trading standards department, because trading standards officers play an important role in seeking to resolve many of these issues.
I am in no way complacent about the scale of the difficulties that are to be encountered by consumers confronted by mis-selling practices. Through this House, I call on the industry to raise its game. I know that many of the responsible companies and managers in the industry recognise that there is a significant difficulty that affects the good name of the entire industry, and that it must be improved. I want the full panoply of conditions and constraints to be used to raise the game in relation to doorstep and telephone mis-selling.
It is important in general to get across the message that, under trading standards legislation, where there is doorstep selling, consumers have a seven-day cooling-off period when they are buying goods or services worth more than £35 during an unsolicited home visit or, as my hon. Friend pointed out, a telephone call. It is one of the blights of modern society—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, like myself, probably discover that every time you want to put a meal on the table the telephone rings, and it is usually someone trying to sell you something that you already have. The seven-day cooling-off period is not just for the temper of those whose dinner has been ruined; it is also to allow people to step back from any contract that they may have sought to sign.
I congratulate my hon. Friend. He has raised many very important issues, which the Government are aware of and concerned about. The Utilities Act contains new powers that allow the regulator and the consumer council to tackle these matters, but the ultimate responsibility must be with the companies to ensure that they have a standard of service that is second to none, because informed consumers will make their choices about where to buy their energy, based on the quality of the service that they get from the company to which they are contracted.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Seven o'clock.